United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Owensboro Division
H. McKinley Jr., Senior Judge
matter is before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff
Charles Weedman's pro se, in forma
pauperis complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2). For the reasons that follow, the Court will
dismiss the action.
Plaintiff initiated this action by
filing his complaint on a form for filing an employment
discrimination claim. He names Steve Steff, plumber and
landlord, as Defendant.
statement of the claim, Plaintiff alleges:
On or about October 15th 2018 our Land Loard had our water
turned off to try and force me and my wife out of
the House we rent. Steve St[e]ff is the Land Loard that did
this. Our Neighbor that works for Steve told me and my wife
the reason He  did this was I had a accident with a dog.
and as of 1-4-2019 we still have no water. This has caused me
an my wife hardship. We have had probls tacking baths doing
laundry and cooking - dishe's - and keeping a clean house
and is still going on as of 1-4-2019.
in the complaint form, Plaintiff makes the following
Steve Steff Land Lord had our water turned off and told our
Neighbor that works and rents also from Steve Steff that the
reason he did this was I accidentally drag a dog with my
truck. I forgot the dog was tied to it becoase the dog was
not mine an I was not use to the dog being at my house it was
not our dog. an I do have a brain injry and forget a lot. Our
Land Lord had our water turned off even thow the
Bill was payed in full. in our name and had nothing to do
with Steve our Land Lord we payed the bill and the deposit
also. City Hall aloud Steve to have our water turned off for
No reason. when No bill was owed . . . City
Hall will not talk to me or my wife they hang up when we call
them an ask why our water was turned off. I am also filing on
them also over this . . . . I am sending a copy of the
deposit to show check stud to show were our deposit was
mailed to us for No reason! from the City.
on the employment-discrimination complaint form, as
discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff checkmarks the box for
“Failure to accommodate my disability, ” and as
the basis of discrimination, he checkmarks the box for
“disability or perceived disability” and
specifies, “I am Disable an my wife also. . . . I had a
bike wreck 12 years  ago that gave me a Brain injury is why
I am disable.” As relief, Plaintiff asks that
“Steve Steff have our water turned on. And that Steve
can't evict us. And pay me and my wife a thousand a month
a pice for the hardship this is causeing us. And that we
should not have to pay rent as long as this is going
Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court
must review the complaint and amended complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e). 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. §
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 ...