IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

MICHELLE R. MATHIS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs. Civil Action 2:12-cv-322

Judge Marbley

Magistrate Judge King

MIKE DeWINE, et al.,

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Michelle R. Mathis (“plaintiff”) has filed a complaint, which she

characterizes as a class action complaint, asserting claims on her own

behalf and on behalf of 16 other named individuals.1 Plaintiff’s

application for leave to proceed without prepayment of fees or costs has

been granted. This matter is now before the Court for the initial screen

of the Complaint required by 28 U.S.C. §1915(e).

The Claims Asserted in the Complaint

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief of an unspecified nature as well

as $900 billion in compensatory damages. The Complaint, which is signed

only by plaintiff, describes the action as follows:

This is a class action lawsuit arising out of the

fraudulent and/or inaccurate criminal records,

human trafficking of Plaintiff and class members,

digital rapes, violations of First Amendment,

Fourth Amendment, Nineth [sic] Amendment,

Thirteenth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment to

1 Plaintiff has submitted an amended complaint which omits one of the

original plaintiffs named in the original Complaint.

Case: 2:12-cv-00322-ALM-NMK Doc #: 4 Filed: 05/01/12 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
the U.S. Constitution on all members of the class

and Plaintiff.

Complaint, p. 8. The Complaint specifically alleges that the rapper

“Shawn Carter (A.K.A. Jay-Z)” is “the person in operation of the human

trafficking,” id., and that the 

people of the United States of America have place

[sic] remote neural monitoring on Plaintiff and

class members to control us as human traffick [sic]

victims to not continue to place court complaints

or even do court complaints because people of

United States of America refuse to do anything

about our torment, abuse, digital rapes, rapes and

human trafficking. 

Id. Reports of the alleged human trafficking have been made to the

Columbus Police and the Toledo Police Departments, as well as to the Ohio

Attorney General and associated agencies, but no action has been taken. 

Id. at 9. 

The Complaint also asserts claims arising out of certain court

proceedings involving Mia Clayborne, one of the other named plaintiffs,

based on a criminal complaint made by defendant Kristi Amick. Id. at 11.

A state court judge and magistrate, also named as defendants, “which are

heavily into human trafficking of Plaintiff and Class members by allowing

legal malpractice,” id.,

continued to conduct court hearings to emotionally

distress and maliciously harm Shanda Mathis and her

children (all class members) even though Shanda

Mathis filed complaints and a lawsuit on Judge Jim

Mason.

Id. at 12. Also named as defendants are the attorney who represented Mia

Clayborne and the Assistant Prosecutor who prosecuted her.

Plaintiff also alleges that the Ohio Attorney General has refused

to correct plaintiff’s false and inaccurate criminal record and who has

“a secret court order” on her which subjects her to electronic

2

Case: 2:12-cv-00322-ALM-NMK Doc #: 4 Filed: 05/01/12 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
surveillance and wiretaps by the National Security Agency, whose Director

is also named as a defendant. Id. at 15.

Finally, the Complaint names as defendants “President Barack Obama

and Michelle Obama,” and alleges that “Shawn Carter (A.K.A. Jay-Z) has

a close relationship with President Barack Obama.” Id. at 8.

Discussion

To the extent that plaintiff attempts to assert claims of other

individuals, such as Mia Clayborne and Shanda Mathis, she lacks standing

and authority to do so. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (“In all courts of the

United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases

personally or by counsel . . . .”) Plaintiff, who is not an attorney

licensed to practice law in this Court, cannot present the claims of

others.

Plaintiff appears to assert on her own behalf claims arising out of

alleged “human trafficking” by Jay-Z, reports about that human

trafficking and “place[ment] of remote neural monitoring” on plaintiff,

resulting in electronic wiretaps by the Director of the National Security

Agency. The United States Supreme Court has explained that a complaint

filed in forma pauperis should be dismissed as frivolous if it lacks an

arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325

(1989). A complaint lacks an arguable basis in law or fact if it is based

on legal theories that are indisputably without merit or if it contains

factual allegations that are “fantastic or delusional.” Id. at 327-28;

Brand v. Motley, 526 F.3d 921, 923-24 (6th Cir. 2008). This Court concludes

that the claims asserted by plaintiff on her own behalf are based on

factual allegations that are fantastic or delusional.

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the action be dismissed.

3

Case: 2:12-cv-00322-ALM-NMK Doc #: 4 Filed: 05/01/12 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and

Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and serve

on all parties objections to the Report and Recommendation, specifically

designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part thereof in

question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 28 U.S.C.

§636(b)(1); F.R. Civ. P. 72(b). Response to objections must be filed

within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. F.R.

Civ. P. 72(b). 

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the

Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo

review by the District Judge and of the right to appeal the decision of

the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers,

Local 231 etc., 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987); United States v. Walters, 

638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

May 1, 2012 s/Norah McCann King 

 (Date) Norah McCann King

 United States Magistrate Judge

4

Case: 2:12-cv-00322-ALM-NMK Doc #: 4 Filed: 05/01/12 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>