UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION
PAULA ZELESNIK, Case No. 1:17-cv-710
Plaintiff, Black, J.

Litkovitz, M.J.
vs.

PATRICIA OBARSKI, et al.,
Defendants.

NOTICE

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy of
the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations. This period may be extended further by the Court on
timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected
to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report
and Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring on the record at an oral
hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such
portions of it as all parties may agree upon, or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the
assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party’s objections
WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in
accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140

(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).


give the defendants or the Court notice of the factual basis for plaintiff's claims. Twombly, 550
USS. at 555. Accordingly, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted

and should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. Plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice.

2. The Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) that for the foregoing reasons an
appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in good faith
and therefore deny plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Plaintiff remains free to apply to
proceed in forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals. See Callihan v. Schneider, 178 F.3d 800,

803 (6th Cir. 1999), overruling in part Floyd v. United States Postal Serv., 105 F.3d 274, 277

(6th Cir. 1997).

pues Lol2laf Z lotr < xebhas
Karen L. Litkovitz, Magistrate Inge

United States District Court


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION
PAULA ZELESNIK, Case No. 1:17-cv-710
Plaintiff, Dlott, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.
vs.
PATRICIA OBARSKI, et al., REPORT AND
Defendants. RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, a resident of Cincinnati, Ohio, brings this pro se action against Patricia Obarski,
Judge Bachman, Cincinnati Public Schools, “GE Hall of Fame,” and others alleging violations of
her rights. By separate Order, plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This matter is before the Court for a sua sponte review of
plaintiff's complaint to determine whether the complaint, or any portion of it, should be
dismissed because it is frivolous, 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).

In enacting the original in forma pauperis statute, Congress recognized that a “litigant
whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an
economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.” Denton
v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989)).
To prevent such abusive litigation, Congress has authorized federal courts to dismiss an in
Jorma pauperis complaint if they are satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious. Id; see
also 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A complaint may be dismissed as frivolous when the
plaintiff cannot make any claim with a rational or arguable basis in fact or law. Neitzke v.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328-29 (1989); see also Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196, 1198 (6th


Cir. 1990). An action has no arguable legal basis when the defendant is immune from suit or
when plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist. Neitzke, 490
U.S. at 327. An action has no arguable factual basis when the allegations are delusional or rise
to the level of the irrational or “wholly incredible.” Denton, 504 U.S. at 32; Lawler, 898 F.2d
at 1199. The Court need not accept as true factual allegations that are “fantastic or delusional”
in reviewing a complaint for frivolousness. Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 471 (6th Cir. 2010)
(quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328).

Congress also has authorized the sua sponte dismissal of complaints that fail to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii). A complaint filed
by a pro se plaintiff must be “liberally construed” and “held to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)
(quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). By the same token, however, the
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
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also Hill, 630 F.3d at 470-71
(“dismissal standard articulated in Jgbal and Twombly governs dismissals for failure to state a
claim” under §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)).

“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.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The Court must accept all well-
pleaded factual allegations as true, but need not “accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a
factual allegation.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting Papasan y. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286

(1986)). Although a complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” it must provide


“more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.

at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). A pleading that offers “labels and conclusions” or “a

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at

555. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders “naked assertion[s]” devoid of “further factual

enhancement.” /d. at 557. The complaint must “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . .

claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93 (citations omitted).
Plaintiff's pro se complaint alleges the following:

Attempted rape and (attempted) murder at Good Samaritan Hospital 1999, 2013,
2015.

Rape and murder at WPAFB 2015 by GE Susie Shellenberger (see lawsuits May
2015, Jan. 2016) 2015 cv 02441 and CA 027010
Ohio Gov. John Kasich and OAG Mike DeWine

Rape and murder at PA hospitals 2009-2011 when GE JSF F136 AETD was
voted down by President Obama and Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, John
Boehner and Steve Chabot.

Rape and attempted murder by Brother Dan @ UD 1985.

Murder of my grandmother Stella Piekos in North Randall Cleveland Ohio May
2010.

Murder of my grandfather John Piekos @ Charity Hospital Cleveland Ohio 1967.
(Doc. 1-1 at PAGEID#: 8). As relief, plaintiff seeks “the trillion dollars Mayor Cranley lost for
the City of Cincinnati in 2011” and to have “Southwest Airlines cancelled from CVG
(retroactive to April 2017 w/Mother of God Church). (/d. at PAGEID#: 9).

Plaintiff's pro se complaint is rambling, difficult to decipher, and borders on the
delusional. Plaintiff's complaint provides no factual content or context from which the Court
may reasonably infer that the defendants violated plaintiff's rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

Plaintiff's allegations generally amount to legal conclusions that in themselves are insufficient to