CASE NO. 3:08 CV 2841.United States District Court, N.D. Ohio.
February 4, 2009
OPINION AND ORDER
JAMES CARR, District Judge
On December 3, 2008, plaintiff pro se David Jermaine Aaron filed this in forma pauperis action against W/T Realty/Lake Point Apartments. The complaint alleges “[d]efendant lied under Oath along with the residing (sic) Judge,” and that “plaintiff did in fact reside at residence 1614 Remington Ave. Sandusky, Ohio 44870 Apt. C during the purchase time period by defendant Robert Waldcock owner of W-T Realty located at 1117 Washington Row Sandusky, Ohio 44870.” The complaint does not assert any particular legal theory, but appears to challenge a forcible entry and detainer action in the Sandusky Municipal Court. For the reasons stated below, this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the district court is
required to dismiss an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990); Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996).
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 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 from sentence fragments Beaudette, 775 F.2d at 1278. 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. See, Lillard v. Shelby County Bd. of Educ,, 76 F.3d 716 (6th Cir. 1996) (court not required to accept summary allegations or unwarranted legal conclusions in determining whether complaint states a claim for relief).
Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and this action is dismissed under section 1915(e). 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.