Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Armstead v. Social Security Admin.

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Owensboro Division

March 31, 2017

GLENN A. ARMSTEAD PLAINTIFF
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMIN. et al. DEFENDANTS

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Joseph H. McKinley, Jr., Chief Judge

         This matter is before the Court on initial review of the pro se, in forma pauperis complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). For the reasons that follow, the action will be dismissed.

         I.

         Plaintiff Glenn A. Armstead brings this civil action against the “Social Security Admin.” (SSA) and the Cabinet for Health and Human Services. He asserts that the basis of this Court's jurisdiction is both “Federal question” and “Diversity of citizenship.” As to federal-question jurisdiction, he lists the following federal statutes: 42 U.S.C. § 1985; “42 - Subchapter V Assisted Programs”; and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As to diversity of citizenship, Plaintiff indicates that he is a citizen of Kentucky and that SSA is incorporated under the laws of Kentucky and has its principal place of business in Kentucky. Further, he claims that the amount in controversy is more than $75, 000 because “witholding goverment documents that's Approved Dated March 22, 2016 - 72 Month's - never received.” As his “Statement of Claim, ” Plaintiff writes: “Documents Dated March 22, 2016 Approved SSI And Extra Medical. Cabinet sent Documents to My Home on the March 22, 2016 Date. Approved SSI form PA-11 Documents turned over to Oig SSA -hhs.” Finally, as “Relief, ” Plaintiff seeks the following:

I would Ask to tort to Allow me 15 million Dollars for the fact it that My rights are still Being violated Every Day I Dont receive payment under Law I've Been Very Depressed, Down, suicide was Almost My Last thought of Mind, Less than A U.S Citizen with proof of that I should Have monthly income And medical from 2010 up 2016, But My rights was taking Away from unfair practice. Timeframe - Intent[.]

         II.

         Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must review the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608-09 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). On review, a district court must dismiss a case at any time if it determines that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

         A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The trial court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Id. at 327.

         In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “[A] district court must (1) view the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and (2) take all well-pleaded factual allegations as true.” Tackett v. M & G Polymers, USA, LLC, 561 F.3d 478, 488 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Gunasekera v. Irwin, 551 F.3d 461, 466 (6th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted)).

         Although courts are to hold pro se pleadings “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, ” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), this duty to be less stringent “does not require us to conjure up unpled allegations, ” McDonald v. Hall, 610 F.2d 16, 19 (1st Cir. 1979), or to create a claim for a plaintiff. Clark v. Nat'l Travelers Life Ins. Co., 518 F.2d 1167, 1169 (6th Cir. 1975). To command otherwise would require courts “to explore exhaustively all potential claims of a pro se plaintiff, [and] would also 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.” Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).

         III.

         A. Federal-question jurisdiction

         1. 42 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.