Source: http://tn.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20150112_0000085.WTN.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-12-09 21:10:44
Document Index: 393128359

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915']

| Rowan v. Memphis Bonding Co.
Rowan v. Memphis Bonding Co.
BRENT A. ROWAN, Plaintiff,v.MEMPHIS BONDING CO. et al., Defendant.
On July 19, 2013, Plaintiff Brent A. Rowan, a resident of Memphis, Tennessee, filed a pro se complaint captioned "Complaint for the Violations of Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983" against Memphis Bonding Co., accompanied by a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docket Entries ("D.E.") 1 & 2.) On October 7, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (D.E. # 4).
"After my release from 201 Poplar Avenue, I walked to the Memphis Bonding Company. The representative informed me that my bond was posted by Ida B. Winston. Afterwards, I sought legal representation from Atty. John Priest. His office is on Exchange Avenue. At that time, I was not given a bill or invoice. My aunt used my ATM card to bail me out of jail. On July 15, 2013 at 6:10P.M. my aunt called me and informed me that I owe a bill. She was not very polite. However, my bank records reflect a payment on the outstanding balance before my release from jail."
Plaintiff states that he "would like the court to determine the exact amount due as of 07/17/2013. I would also like to request a bond hearing...I need the courts to inform Memphis Bonding Company of my indigency and disabilities which limit my income to federal disability. Inasmuch, I would like the courts to review documents for a Chapter 7 or 13 bankruptcy case. I need the courts to determine whether or not my civil rights are violated."
" Pro se complaints are to be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, and should therefore be liberally construed." Williams, 631 F.3d at 383 (internal quotation marks omitted). Pro se litigants, however, are not exempt from the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989); see also Brown v. Matauszak, 415 F.Appx. 608, 613 (6th Cir. 2011) ("[A] court cannot create a claim which [a plaintiff] has not spelled out in his pleading") (internal quotation marks omitted); Payne v. Secretary of Treas., 73 F.Appx. 836, 837 (6th Cir. 2003) (affirming sua sponte dismissal of complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) and stating, "[n]either this court nor the district court is required to create Payne's claim for her"); cf. Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004) ("District judges have no obligation to act as counsel or paralegal to pro se litigants."); Young Bok Song v. Gipson, 423 F.Appx. 506, 510 (6th Cir. 2011) ("[W]e decline to affirmatively require courts to ferret out the strongest cause of action on behalf of pro se litigants. Not only would that duty be overly burdensome, it would transform the courts from neutral arbiters of disputes into advocates for a particular party. While courts are properly charged with protecting the rights of all who come before it, that responsibility does not encompass advising litigants as to what legal theories they should pursue."), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 461 (2011).
Plaintiff's complaint does not comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1), which requires that "[a] pleading that states a claim for relief" contain "a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction." The instant complaint does not include any jurisdictional allegations beyond a brief mention of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, [1] a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) a deprivation of rights secured by the "Constitution and laws" of the United States (2) committed by a defendant acting under color of state law. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 150 (1970). Plaintiff has not stated in the Complaint in what manner Defendant was acting under color of state law and what actions Defendant took to deprive Plaintiff of rights secured by the "Constitution and laws" of the United States.
Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that the Court DISMISS the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii).
The good faith standard is an objective one. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). The test under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) for whether an appeal is taken in good faith is whether the litigant seeks appellate review of any issue that is not frivolous. Id . It would be inconsistent for a district court to determine that a complaint should be dismissed prior to service on the defendants, but has sufficient merit to support an appeal in forma pauperis. See Williams v. Kullman, 722 F.2d 1048, 1050 n.1 (2d Cir. 1983). The same considerations that lead the Court to recommend dismissal of this case for failure to state a claim also compel the conclusion that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the Court CERTIFY, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal in this matter by Plaintiff would not be taken in good faith and Plaintiff may not proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the