United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Owensboro Division
GLENN A. ARMSTEAD PLAINTIFF
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMIN. et al. DEFENDANTS
H. McKinley, Jr., Chief Judge
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.
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[.]
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. §
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.
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
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).