Opinion
CASE NO. 1: 19 CV 298
06-03-2019
CLARISSA TURNER, Plaintiff, v. LATRAY NEW SPIRIT CHURCH, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO , J. :
Pro Se Plaintiff Clarissa Turner has filed an in forma pauperis civil Complaint in this matter against Latray New Spirit Church. (Doc. No. 1.) Her Complaint does not set forth comprehensible factual allegations or legal claims. Plaintiff purports to seek $75 million in damages from Latray New Spirit Church for a "burning chemical" on her body, starting in 2006. (See id. at 4).
Although the standard of review for pro se pleadings is liberal, the generous construction afforded pro se plaintiffs has limits. Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996). Pro se plaintiffs must still meet basic pleading requirements and courts are not required to conjure allegations on their behalf. See Erwin v. Edwards, 22 F. App'x 579, 2001 WL 1556573 (6th Cir. Dec. 4, 2001). Federal district courts are required, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), to screen all in forma pauperis complaints filed in federal court and to dismiss before service any such action the court determines is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). To state a claim on which relief may be granted, a complaint must set forth sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 471 (6th Cir. 2010) (holding that the dismissal standard articulated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) governs dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)). Although detailed factual allegations are not required, the "allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Additionally, they must be sufficient to give the defendants "fair notice of what [the plaintiff's] claims are and the grounds upon which they rest." Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002). A complaint is "frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (Section "1915(d)'s term "frivolous," when applied to a complaint, embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.").
Even according the Plaintiff's Complaint the deference to which a pro se pleading is entitled, it does set forth allegations sufficient to suggest any plausible federal claim. See Lillard v. Shelby Cty. Bd. of Educ., 76 F.3d 716, 726 (6th Cir. 1996) (a court is not required to accept summary allegations or unwarranted conclusions in determining whether a complaint states a claim for relief). Additionally, the Complaint falls within the realm of frivolousness.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is granted, but her Complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court further certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Christopher A. Boyko
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
United States District Judge Dated: June 3, 2019