UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

Jewell Evette Jones, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

Montgomery County Dept. Of Job And 

Family Services – Children Services 

Division, et al., 

Defendants. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

:

Case No. 3:18-cv-00037 

District Judge Walter H. Rice 

Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington 

DECISION AND ENTRY 

 The pro se Complaint presently before the Court names as Plaintiffs Jewell Evette 

Jones and Edward Levi Jones. They both reside in Dayton, Ohio. The Complaint asserts 

claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981a, 1983, and state law. The Complaint alleges, in part, 

that Defendant Montgomery County Department of Job and Family Services (MCJFS) 

and various individuals intentionally discriminated against her during her employment 

with MCJFS. 

 The Court previously granted Plaintiff Jewel Evette Jones’s (Plaintiff’s) 

Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Edward Levi Jones 

did not file a similar application and has not signed the Complaint. 

 The case is presently before the Court for a sua sponte review to determine 

whether Plaintiff’s Complaint, or any portion of it, should be dismissed because it is 

frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 
2 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). If the Complaint raises a claim with an arguable or rational basis 

in fact or law, it is neither frivolous nor malicious, and it may not be dismissed sua 

sponte. Brand v. Motley, 526 F.3d 921, 923-24 (6th Cir. 2008); see Lawler v. Marshall, 

898 F.2d 1196, 1198 (6th Cir. 1990). A Complaint has no arguable factual basis when its 

allegations are “fantastic or delusional.” Brand, 526 F.3d at 923 (quoting Neitzke v. 

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989)); see Lawler, 898 F.2d at 1199. A Complaint has 

no arguable legal basis when it presents “indisputably meritless” legal theories – for 

example, when the defendant is immune from suit or when the plaintiff claims a violation 

of a legal interest which clearly does not exist. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327-28; see also 

Brand, 526 F.3d at 923. The main issue thus presented by a sua sponte review at this 

early stage of the case is “whether [the] complaint makes an arguable legal claim and is 

based on rational facts.” Brand, 526 F.3d at 923-24 (citing Lawler, 898 F.2d at 1198). 

 Accepting Plaintiff’s factual allegations as true and construing her pro se

Complaint liberally in her favor reveals that she raises sufficient allegations to avoid sua 

sponte dismissal. She does not raise delusional or irrational factual allegations, and her 

facts are sufficiently specific to raise at least an arguable legal claim. 

 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint is not subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1915(e)(2). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:

1. The United States Marshal’s Office is ORDERED to effect service upon 

Defendant, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3), once it receives the required forms from 

the Clerk of Court. All costs of service shall be advanced by the United States. 
3 

2. Plaintiff must serve each named Defendant—or his or her attorney in the event the 

attorney’s appearance is entered in the record—with a copy of every document 

submitted for consideration by the Court. Plaintiff shall include with the original 

paper to be filed with the Clerk of Court a certificate stating the date and a true 

and correct copy of any document mailed to the Defendants or their attorneys. 

Any paper received by a District Judge or Magistrate Judge that has not been filed 

with the Clerk of Court or that fails to include a certificate of service will be 

disregarded by the Court. 

3. Plaintiff must inform the Clerk of Court promptly of any changes of address she 

has during the pendency of this lawsuit. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of 

this case for failure to prosecute. 

February 16, 2018 s/Sharon L. Ovington 

 Sharon L. Ovington 

 United States Magistrate Judge