1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

PAULA ZELESNIK, Case No. 1:18-cv-478

Plaintiff,

Black, J.

vs. Bowman, M.J.

CORBETT CAUDILL, et. al.,

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, a resident of Cincinnati, Ohio brings this action against a lengthy list of at 

least 21 identified individual Defendants.

1 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).

I. Analysis

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 

 1Two of the “individual” defendants appear to be groups of individuals, including a reference to “Susie 

Dlott/Chesley” and the “Keating 5.”

Case: 1:18-cv-00478-TSB-SKB Doc #: 4 Filed: 07/20/18 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: 20
2

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 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 

Case: 1:18-cv-00478-TSB-SKB Doc #: 4 Filed: 07/20/18 Page: 2 of 6 PAGEID #: 21
3

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 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). 

In a span of just over a year, beginning on March 29, 2017 Plaintiff has filed seven 

lawsuits in this Court. Upon initial screening, the undersigned and U.S. Magistrate Judge 

Karen Litkovitz have recommended dismissal of six of the seven lawsuits based upon 

Plaintiff’s failure to state any claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Reviewing the claims 

presented in the most recent complaint filed prior to the instant suit, in Case No. 1:18-cv433, the undersigned stated that Plaintiff

claims to be suing for rape, attempted murder, fake lawsuit, fake judgments 

by all judges, as well as suing “Cincinnati and Senator Rob Portman for 

refusing to grant me any/all of the protection orders I requested.” ... The 

majority of Plaintiff=s factual allegations are illogical and incomprehensible. 

The complaint provides no factual content or context from which the Court

may reasonably infer any plausible claims against the named defendants. 

Furthermore, 28 U.S.C. § 1983 provides redress for civils rights violations 

of an individual’s constitutional rights, it does not provide this Court with 

jurisdiction to address Plaintiff’s criminal allegations of rape and attempted 

murder in a civil context. 

(Doc. 6 at 3 in Case No. 1:18-cv-433). Based upon the “illogical and incomprehensible” 

Case: 1:18-cv-00478-TSB-SKB Doc #: 4 Filed: 07/20/18 Page: 3 of 6 PAGEID #: 22
4

nature of the allegations, the undersigned once again recommended sua sponte

dismissal. In fact, the undersigned has similarly found, in every prior case assigned to 

her upon initial screening, that “Plaintiff’s factual allegations are illogical and 

incomprehensible.” (Case No. 1:17-cv-209, Doc. 4 at 3; Case No. 1:17-cv-211, Doc. 7 at 

3; Case No. 1:17-cv-505, Doc. 4 at 3). Judge LItkovitz has similarly found Plaintiff’s 

complaints to be “rambling, difficult to decipher, and border[] on the delusional,” with “no 

factual content or context from which the Court may reasonably infer that the defendants 

violated the plaintiff’s rights.” (Case No. 1:17-cv-710, Doc. 4 at 3; Case No. 1:17-cv-210, 

Doc. 7 at 3). 

Plaintiff’s current complaint contains similar illogical, incomprehensible, and 

apparently delusional allegations. Plaintiff seeks a Court order removing her from “ALL 

of the following,” listing a series of difficult-to-decipher documents, including “certifications 

and recertifications and uncertifications by GE....” and “Russian patents....” Other 

allegations refer in a disjointed manner to “human trafficking” and “rape and murder by 

AA Central Office.” (Doc. 1-1 at 3-4). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s current complaint once 

again fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and should be dismissed 

under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B). 

Last but not least, considering that this is Plaintiff’s seventh frivolous case filed in 

this Court found to be subject to summary dismissal on initial screening, it is appropriate 

to put Plaintiff on notice and to warn her that she will be subject to sanctions if she 

continues to file such frivolous lawsuits with this Court, which sanctions will include, but 

not be limited to, a pre-filing restriction that would prohibit her from filing any additional 

complaints without leave of Court. See Baldwin v. KeyCorp Bd. of Directors, 2014 WL 

Case: 1:18-cv-00478-TSB-SKB Doc #: 4 Filed: 07/20/18 Page: 4 of 6 PAGEID #: 23
5

2695502, at *1 (S.D.Ohio 2014).

III. Conclusion and Recommendations

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that 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. Finally, IT IS 

RECOMMENDED that any Order of adoption include an express and explicit warning to 

Plaintiff that she will be subject to sanctions if she continues to file such frivolous lawsuits 

with this Court, which sanctions will include, but not be limited to, a pre-filing restriction 

that would prohibit her from filing any additional complaints without leave of Court.

 s/ Stephanie K. Bowman 

Stephanie K. Bowman 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case: 1:18-cv-00478-TSB-SKB Doc #: 4 Filed: 07/20/18 Page: 5 of 6 PAGEID #: 24
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

PAULA ZELESNIK, Case No. 1:18-cv-478

Plaintiff,

Black, J.

vs. Bowman, M.J.

CORBETT CAUDILL, et. al.,

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-00478-TSB-SKB Doc #: 4 Filed: 07/20/18 Page: 6 of 6 PAGEID #: 25