Opinion
No. 01-CV-72155
June 28, 2001
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)
Pro se plaintiff Michael DeRamus' application to proceed in forma pauperis, without prepayment of fees, was granted on June 11, 2001 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(1), with the exception of costs of service. In his complaint, plaintiff alleges the several defendants are liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1985, 1986 and 1988 for violations of plaintiffs' Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as violations of "Federal laws, rules and statutes." Plaintiff alleges, that from September 1992 to the present, the defendants have conspired by egregious conduct to suppress material evidence, and to fabricate evidence, departmental records and investigative reports. In paragraph Ill. of his complaint, "plaintiff demands the return of his child and all false records, evidence, fabrications, reports and/or documentation be destroyed." Plaintiff continues that the defendants should be held accountable "to the full extent of the federal laws both civilly and criminally." Plaintiff "seeks $60,000,000.00 monetary relief."
An in forma pauperis action may be dismissed by the district court at any time the court determines the action is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(i), (ii). The gist of plaintiffs' complaint appears to be that Wayne County and its agents deprived plaintiff of due process by falsifying information that resulted in the loss of parental rights to a child. The circumstances constituting fraud must be set forth in a complaint with particularity. Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b). "[T]he purpose undergirding the particularity requirement of Rule 9(b) is to provide a defendant fair notice of the substance of a plaintiffs claim in order that the defendant may prepare a responsive pleading." Michaels Building Co. v. Ameritrust Co., N.A., 848 F.2d 674, 679 (6th Cir. 1988). A complaint sets forth an actionable fraud claim where it sets forth the time, place and content of the alleged misrepresentation, and the identity of the parties participating in the fraud. United States v. Boeing Co., 184 F.R.D. 107, 109 (S.D. Ohio 1998).
While recognizing this court's duty not to construe the pro se complaint as if it had been drafted by legal counsel, plaintiffs' complaint fails to allege any facts to support his generalized claims of false information. Defendants are left to speculate what evidence, departmental records or investigative reports they allegedly falsified over the course of nine years, what material facts they allegedly misrepresented, and their alleged involvement in the alleged fraudulent conspiracy. Plaintiff has not even identified who the individual defendants are, or by what process the defendants deprived plaintiff of his civil rights. The court is left to speculate whether plaintiffs parental rights were revoked, or whether plaintiff lost custody of the unnamed child. Plaintiffs allegations seeking criminal liability in this matter are frivolous. At best, plaintiffs complaint contains conclusionary statements of law unsupported by fact. Consequently, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(i), (ii),
IT IS ORDERED THAT this action is DISMISSED as frivolous, and for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
SO ORDERED.