UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

JADEA J. CONTE, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 Civil Action 2:18-cv-903 

 v. Judge Michael H. Watson 

 Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura 

 

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 

 

 Defendants. 

 

ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 Plaintiff, Jadea J. Conte, an Ohio resident proceeding without the assistance of counsel, 

has submitted a request to file a civil action in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 4.) The Court 

GRANTS Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. All judicial officers who render 

services in this action shall do so as if the costs had been prepaid. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). This 

matter is also before the Court for the initial screen of Plaintiff’s Complaint as required by 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to identify cognizable claims and to recommend dismissal of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint, or any portion of it, which 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). Having performed the initial screen, for the reasons that follow, 

it is RECOMMENDED that the Court DISMISS this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) WITHOUT PREJUDICE to 

filing any state-law claims in state court. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00903-MHW-CMV Doc #: 5 Filed: 09/04/18 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: 18
2 

I. 

Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the federal in forma pauperis statute, seeking to 

“lower judicial access barriers to the indigent.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). 

In doing so, however, “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.’” Id. at 31 (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 

U.S. 319, 324 (1989)). To address this concern, Congress included subsection (e)1

, which 

provides in pertinent part as follows: 

(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been 

paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that-- 

 * * * 

 (B) the action or appeal-- 

 (i) is frivolous or malicious; 

 (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or . . . . 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii); Denton, 504 U.S. at 31. Thus, § 1915(e) requires sua sponte

dismissal of an action upon the Court’s determination that the action is frivolous or malicious, or 

upon determination that the action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

 To properly state a claim upon which relief may be granted, a plaintiff must satisfy the 

basic federal pleading requirements set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). See also 

Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470–71 (6th Cir. 2010) (applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6) standards to review under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). Under Rule 

8(a)(2), a complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

 

1

Formerly 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). 

Case: 2:18-cv-00903-MHW-CMV Doc #: 5 Filed: 09/04/18 Page: 2 of 6 PAGEID #: 19
3 

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Thus, Rule 8(a) “imposes legal and factual 

demands on the authors of complaints.” 16630 Southfield Ltd., P’Ship v. Flagstar Bank, F.S.B., 

727 F.3d 502, 503 (6th Cir. 2013). 

 Although this pleading standard does not require “‘detailed factual allegations,’ . . . [a] 

pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 

of action,’” is insufficient. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A complaint will not “suffice if it tenders ‘naked 

assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). 

Instead, to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), “a 

complaint must contain sufficient factual matter . . . to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on 

its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Facial plausibility is established “when the 

plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the 

defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. “The plausibility of an inference depends on 

a host of considerations, including common sense and the strength of competing explanations for 

the defendant’s conduct.” Flagstar Bank , 727 F.3d at 504 (citations omitted). Further, when 

considering a pro se plaintiff’s Complaint, a Court “must read [the allegations] with less 

stringency . . . and accept the pro se plaintiff’s allegations as true, unless they are clearly 

irrational or wholly incredible.” Reynosa v. Schultz, 282 F. App’x 386, 389 (6th Cir. 2008) 

(citing Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (internal citation omitted). 

II. 

Based upon the case caption, it appears that Plaintiff seeks to bring this action against the 

United States of America, the State of Ohio, and several private companies, including LBrands, 

Case: 2:18-cv-00903-MHW-CMV Doc #: 5 Filed: 09/04/18 Page: 3 of 6 PAGEID #: 20
4 

Inc., Mast Global, Inc., and LGS Staffing, Inc. The entirety of Plaintiff’s “Statement of Claim” 

in her Complaint provides as follows: 

Excessive use of, consumption, and use of illegal, illicit drug propaganda [sic] to 

the harm of, and involved in the murder of Ms. Jadea Conte, and Mr. Chad Conte. 

Suspects of the majority black population known to have prior felonious conduct 

with repeated release, no progressive Corrections Rehabilitation by the State of 

Ohio. Black majority violence in lack of control by The State of Ohio; however, 

compounds injury to a definition not taught in United States law schools, nor 

could such acts be clarify or argued in Courts of the United States. Ms. Conte is a 

witness to her own murder upon seperation [sic] of internal antaomy [sic] from 

the body beaten to death within the Jursdiction [sic] of the State. Suspected 

additional parties in the abuse of Ms. Conte’s subconcious [sic] are violent 

beyond the exercise of ‘life and limb,’ in resolving personal injury matters, but 

also the Constitutional exercise of ‘Life and Liberty.’ Ms. Conte’s ‘Rights of 

Execution’ of Justice within the United States Courts has been interefered [sic] 

upon. Acts of violence are also not defined in the law. The Spirit was removed 

from the body for a length of time to cause death, and surgically, used to 

antomically [sic] correct the black majority. Ms. Conte was still alive and in 

witness to the removal of her own body parts. 

(Pl.’s Compl., ECF No. 2 at p. 2-3.) In the relief section of her Complaint, Plaintiff states as 

follows: 

No defined relief within the limitations of Personal Injury law. Ms. Conte requests 

Relief for Life. State of Ohio does not redempdify [sic] the death of the injuried 

[sic] target, Ms. Jadea Conte, and Mr. Chad Conte. 

(Id. at 3.) 

Plaintiff’s Complaint provides insufficient factual content or context from which the 

Court could reasonably infer that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s rights. Instead, the 

allegations Plaintiff sets forth in her Complaint are so implausible and nonsensical as to render 

her Complaint frivolous. A claim is frivolous if it lacks “an arguable basis either in law or in 

fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The former occurs when “indisputably 

meritless” legal theories underlie the complaint, and the latter when it relies on “fantastic or 

delusional” allegations. Id. at 327–28. This Court is not required to accept the factual 

Case: 2:18-cv-00903-MHW-CMV Doc #: 5 Filed: 09/04/18 Page: 4 of 6 PAGEID #: 21
5 

allegations set forth in a complaint as true when such factual allegations are “clearly irrational or 

wholly incredible.” Ruiz v. Hofbauer, 325 F. App’x 427, 429–30 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Denton 

v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992)). Here, Plaintiff’s allegation that she was a “witness to her 

own murder” and that her spirit “was removed from [her] body” and “used to [anatomically] 

correct the black majority” are “clearly irrational or wholly incredible.” Reynosa, 282 F. App’x 

at 389. It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the Court dismiss this action for failure to state a 

claim on which relief may be granted. 

III. 

 For the reasons set forth above, it is RECOMMENDED that the Court DISMISS this 

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim on which relief may 

be granted. 

PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS

If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen 

(14) days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those 

specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with 

supporting authority for the objection(s). A Judge of this Court shall make a de novo 

determination of those portions of the Report or specified proposed findings or 

recommendations to which objection is made. Upon proper objections, a Judge of this Court 

may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made 

herein, may receive further evidence or may recommit this matter to the Magistrate Judge with 

instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and 

Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the District Judge review the Report 

Case: 2:18-cv-00903-MHW-CMV Doc #: 5 Filed: 09/04/18 Page: 5 of 6 PAGEID #: 22
6 

and Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver 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); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 /s/ Chelsey M. Vascura 

CHELSEY M. VASCURA 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case: 2:18-cv-00903-MHW-CMV Doc #: 5 Filed: 09/04/18 Page: 6 of 6 PAGEID #: 23