Atkinson v. State of Ohio, No. 1:2008cv02456 - Document 5 (N.D. Ohio 2008)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing action. Further, the court certifies pursuant to 18:1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Dan Aaron Polster (C,KA)

Download PDF
Atkinson v. State of Ohio Doc. 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO CLARENCE ATKINSON, SR., Plaintiff, v. STATE OF OHIO, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:08 CV 2456 JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER On October 16, 2008, plaintiff pro se Clarence Atkinson, Sr. filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the State of Ohio. The statement of claim portion of the complaint contains only one word: “stalking.” For the reasons stated below, this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. A district court is expressly required to dismiss any civil action filed by a prisoner seeking relief from a governmental officer or entity, as soon as possible after docketing, if the court concludes that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if the plaintiff seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §1915A; Siller v. Dean, No. 99-5323, 2000 WL 145167 , at *2 (6th Cir. Feb. 1, 2000) Principles requiring generous construction of pro se pleadings are not without limits. Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1277 (4th Cir. 1985). A complaint must contain either Dockets.Justia.com direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements of some viable legal theory to satisfy federal notice pleading requirements. See Schied v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434, 437 (6th Cir. 1988). District courts are not required to conjure up questions never squarely presented to them or to construct full blown claims Beaudette, 775 F.2d at 1278. from sentence fragments. To do so would "require ...[the courts] to explore exhaustively all potential claims of a pro se plaintiff, ... [and] would...transform the district court from its legitimate advisory role to the improper role of an advocate seeking out the strongest arguments and most successful strategies for a party." Id. Even liberally construed, the complaint does not contain allegations reasonably suggesting plaintiff might have a valid federal claim. 716 (6th See, Lillard v. Shelby County Bd. of Educ,, 76 F.3d Cir. 1996)(court not required to accept summary allegations or unwarranted legal conclusions in determining whether complaint states a claim for relief) Accordingly, 1915A. this action is dismissed under section Further, the court 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/Dan Aaron Polster 12/8/08 DAN AARON POLSTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.