1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

AISHA SPRINGS, Case No. 1:18-cv-463 

Plaintiff, 

 Barrett, J. 

vs. Bowman, M.J. 

 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 Defendants. 

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

Plaintiff brings this pro se action against the Hamilton County Juvenile Court. By 

separate Order issued this date, 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 forma 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 

Case: 1:18-cv-00463-MRB-SKB Doc #: 4 Filed: 08/02/18 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: 17
2

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 Afantastic 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 Iqbal 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 

Case: 1:18-cv-00463-MRB-SKB Doc #: 4 Filed: 08/02/18 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: 18
3

couched as a factual allegation.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting Papasan v. 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-harmedme 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.” Id. 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). 

 Here, Plaintiff’s complaint asserts that “the State of Ohio has labeled me Black, 

African American United States Citizen which I rebut.” (Doc. 1 at 3). “I rebut the fact that 

the State of Ohio ha[s] permission to label me and my (progeny) children false labels.” 

Id. Plaintiff’s complaint seeks to have the records corrected and notes that the labels “are 

derogatory and enforce slavery.” For relief, Plaintiff’s asks that the status of herself and 

her children be corrected. 

Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to dismissal. The sole defendant named in the 

complaint is the State of Ohio. Any form of relief sought against a State in federal court 

is barred under the Eleventh Amendment unless the State has waived its sovereign 

immunity. See Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Fla., 517 U.S. 44, 58 (1996); Pennhurst State 

Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 98-101 (1984); Hamilton’s Bogarts, Inc. v. Mich., 

501 F.3d 644, 654 n.8 (6th Cir. 2007). The State of Ohio has not constitutionally nor 

statutorily waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity in the federal courts. See Johns v. 

Supreme Court of Ohio, 753 F.2d 524 (6th Cir. 1985); State of Ohio v. Madeline Marie 

Case: 1:18-cv-00463-MRB-SKB Doc #: 4 Filed: 08/02/18 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: 19
4

Nursing Homes, 694 F.2d 449 (6th Cir. 1982). Therefore, Plaintiff’s complaint against the 

State of Ohio should be dismissed. 

Accordingly, for these reasons, it is therefore RECOMMENDED this action be 

DISMISSED with PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim for relief. It is further 

RECOMMENDED that 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. 

 s/ Stephanie K. Bowman 

 Stephanie K. Bowman 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 1:18-cv-00463-MRB-SKB Doc #: 4 Filed: 08/02/18 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: 20
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

AISHA SPRINGS, Case No. 1:18-cv-463 

Plaintiff, 

 Barrett, J. 

vs. Bowman, M.J. 

 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 Defendants. 

 

NOTICE 

 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written 

objections to this Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after 

being served with a copy thereof. That period may be extended further by the Court on 

timely motion by either side for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the 

portion(s) of the R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in 

support of the objections. A party shall respond to an opponent’s objections within 

FOURTEEN DAYS after being served with a copy of those objections. 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). 

 

Case: 1:18-cv-00463-MRB-SKB Doc #: 4 Filed: 08/02/18 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: 21