Jewel Griffin v. Police Chief Todd Hansen

• Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio
• Decided: October 14, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-01953
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

11:22 am Oct 14 2025 Clerk U.S. District Court | Northern District of Ohio UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Cleveland NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

JEWEL GRIFFIN, ) CASE NO. 1:25 CV 1953 ) Plaintiff, ) JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER ) vs. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION ) AND ORDER POLICE CHIEF TODD HANSEN, ) ) Defendant. )

Pro se plaintiff Jewel Griffin filed this civil rights action against Maple Heights Police Chief Todd Hansen, (Doc. No. 1). Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 2). The Court grants the application, but for the following reasons, dismisses the action. I. Background Plaintiff's pleading, in its entirety, states that “I am trying for 3 years to get help from Todd concerning a human trafficking and he has ignored my case and deny me and right to investigation by blocking the case.” (Doc. No. 1 at 4). The pleading does not include a proper request for relief. II. Standard of Review Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365, 102 S.

Ct. 700, 70 L. Ed. 2d 551 (1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S, 519, 520, 92 S. Ct. 594, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1972). The district court, however, is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990); Sistrunk v, City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact when it is premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory or when the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. A cause of action fails to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted when it lacks “plausibility in the complaint.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 564, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009). The factual allegations in the pleading must be sufficient to raise the right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. The plaintiff is not required to include detailed factual allegations, but he or she must provide more than “an unadorned, the defendant unlawfully harmed me accusation.” [gbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pleading that offers legal conclusions or a simple recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not meet this pleading standard. Jd. The Court is “not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S. Ct. 2932, 92 L. Ed. 2d 209 (1986). In reviewing a complaint, the Court must construe the pleading in the light most -2-

favorable to the plaintiff. Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 151 F.3d 559, 561 (6th Cir. 1998). I. Discussion The Court recognizes that pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. El Bey v. Roop, 530 F.3d 407, 413 (6th Cir, 2008). However, the “lenient treatment generally accorded to pro se litigants has limits.” Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996). Liberal construction for pro se litigants does not “abrogate basic pleading requirements.” Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989). The Court is not required to conjure unpleaded facts or construct claims against defendants on behalf of a pro se plaintiff. See Bassett v. Nat’l Collegiate Ath. Ass’n, 528 F.3d 426, 437 (6th Cir. 2008). Although specific facts are not required, to meet the basic minimum notice pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff's complaint must give the defendants fair notice of what the plaintiffs legal claims are and the factual grounds on which they rest. Id.; see also Scheid v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434, 437 (6th Cir. 1988) (all complaints must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all material elements of some viable legal theory to satisfy federal notice pleading requirements) (citations omitted). Here, Plaintiff's complaint, even liberally construed, fails to meet the most basic pleading standard, as her pleading fails to set forth “a short and plain statement of [any] claim showing that [Plaintiff] is entitled to relief[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The complaint fails to include any discernible factual allegations. Additionally, the complaint fails to assert a cognizable claim within the jurisdiction of this Court based on recognized legal authority, and -3-

the Court finds there is no cause of action readily identifiable in the complaint. Plaintiff's inclusion of various federal criminal statutes as a basis for federal jurisdiction does not satisfy pleading requirements. Finally, the complaint fails to connect any alleged occurrence to any specific, cognizable injury. The complaint does not satisfy the minimum pleading requirements of Rule 8 and is therefore dismissed on this basis. IV. Conclusion Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2). And for the foregoing reasons, the Court dismisses this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Further, the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. fo ) IT IS SO ORDERED. ND ip / a Fe DANAARONPOLSTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-4-