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.

Weedman v. Steff

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

July 2, 2019

CHARLES WEEDMAN PLAINTIFF
v.
STEVE STEFF DEFENDANT

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Joseph H. McKinley Jr., Senior Judge

         This 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.

         I.

         Plaintiff[1] 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.

         As his 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.

         Elsewhere in the complaint form, Plaintiff makes the following additional allegations:

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.

         Additionally, 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 on.”

         II.

         Because 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. § 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 ...


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.