El Bey v. Common Pleas Court of Montgomery County Juvenile Division

• Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
• Decided: April 2, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00219
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

NICOLE STARGELL EL BEY,

Plaintiff, Case No. 3:24-cv-219 vs.

COMMON PLEAS COURT OF MONTGOMERY District Judge Michael J. Newman COUNTY JUVENILE DIVISION, et al., Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry

Defendants. _________________________________________________________________________________

ORDER DENYING PRO SE PLAINTIFF’s MOTION TO LIFT HOLD FOR UNNECESSARY DELAY (Doc. No. 5) _________________________________________________________________________________ This case is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Nicole Stargell El Bey’s motion to lift hold for unnecessary delay. Doc. No. 5.1 Plaintiff first filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 1), and this Court granted her motion (Doc. No. 2). When a plaintiff files for in forma pauperis, the law requires the Court to screen Plaintiff’s complaint to determine, in part, if this action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Benson v. O’Brian, 179 F.3d 1014, 1016 (6th Cir. 1999) (holding district courts can screen an in forma pauperis plaintiff’s complaint). This screening process is the next step in Plaintiff’s case in its Order granting Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis motion. Doc. No. 2 at PageID 117-18. Furthermore, the Court also explains this process in its Pro Se Guide for Civil Litigants. See United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, A Guide for Pro Se Civil Litigants: Representing Yourself in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (2017), https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/pro-se-handbook.

1 As with all pro se litigants, Plaintiff’s documents and allegations are liberally construed in her favor. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). The screening process takes time because the Court has many cases on its docket. Since this Court is still in the process of screening Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to lift hold for unnecessary delay. Doc. No. 5. IT IS SO ORDERED. April 2, 2025 s/Michael J. Newman Hon. Michael J. Newman United States District Judge