Source: https://casetext.com/case/vehr-v-ohio-dept-of-parks-recreation-wildlife
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 22:46:59+00:00

Document:
SKYE H. VEHR, Plaintiff, v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF PARKS RECREATION WILDLIFE, Defendant.
Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
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 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., --- F.3d ----, No. 12-2620, 2013 WL 4081909, at *1 (6th Cir. Aug. 14, 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, 2013 WL 4081909 at *2 (citations omitted). Further, the Court holds pro se complaints "'to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'" Garrett v. Belmont Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't., No. 08-3978, 2010 WL 1252923, at *2 (6th Cir. April 1, 2010) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)).
There was a lot of poison used on a certain wildlife rich area of border of the bike path along the Olentangy[.] A lot of people use the nature there to rejuvenate themselves this particular spot is known for work-of-mouth, sightings of a bear[.] The path its area plants are now destroyed[.] The sickening effects of which counter the intent of the bike path of the intent of the wetland park across the river.
(Compl. 3, ECF No. 1-2.) She seeks injunctive relief and $1 billion in damages.
Plaintiff's Complaint provides no factual content or context from which the Court could reasonably infer that Defendant violated Plaintiff's rights. Thus, she has failed to satisfy the basic federal pleading requirements set forth in Rule 8(a). Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. The Undersigned, therefore, RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's Complaint be DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1915