United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Udeme Edoho-Eket, proceeding pro se, has filed a
civil rights complaint against Defendants Alastair Perrymam;
Davidson County Juvenile Court Judge Sheila Calloway; the
Tennessee Department of Children's Services, Child
Support Enforcement; Vanderbilt University employees Morgan
Smith, Jeffrey Levy, Jill Overton, Carrie Mason and the
Nashville Police Department. (Doc. No. 1.) Additionally,
Plaintiff has applied to proceed in forma pauperis.
(Doc. No. 2)
it is apparent from the Plaintiff's application that she
lacks sufficient resources from which to pay the required
filing fee, her application to proceed in forma
pauperis (Doc. No. 2) will be granted.
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court is required to
conduct an initial review of any complaint filed in forma
pauperis and to dismiss the complaint if it is facially
frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
Begola v. Brown, 172 F.3d 47 (Table), 1998 WL
894722, at *1 (6th Cir. Dec. 14, 1998) (citing McGore v.
Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997),
overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549
U.S. 199 (2007)). The Court must construe a pro se
plaintiff's complaint liberally, Boag v.
McDaniel, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982), and accept the
plaintiff's allegations as true unless they are clearly
irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
these standards, the Plaintiff's action will be dismissed
because the Court lacks standing to consider her claims, and
even if the Court had standing, Plaintiff fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted and sues a defendant
who is immune from suit.
virtually impossible to follow the factual allegations in
Plaintiff's complaint. Her complaint appears to cover
events that occurred in 2013, 2014 and 2015, although the
allegations are not in chronological order. The allegations
appear to relate to events that took place in connection with
a custody case involving Plaintiff's son, which appears
to have been decided by Judge Calloway of the Davidson County
Juvenile Court in 2013. Plaintiff largely claims violations
of a multitude of state laws, although at various points in
the complaint she cites to the First, Eighth, Ninth and
Fourteenth Amendment, as well as 42 U.S.C. §16911 et
relief, Plaintiff seeks 27 billion dollars in damages, an
injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the sole custody
agreement entered June 24, 2013, criminal charges against
various defendants, removal of Judge Calloway, disciplinary
charges against various defendants and a change of venue with
respect to all family law cases in Davidson County.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
action is filed in forma pauperis, “the court
shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines
that . . . the action . . . fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). In assessing whether the complaint in this
case states a claim on which relief may be granted, the court
applies the standards under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, as construed by Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009), and Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007).
See Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir.
2010) (holding that “the dismissal standard articulated
in Iqbal and Twombly governs dismissals for
failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)]
because the relevant statutory language tracks the language
in Rule 12(b)(6)”). “Accepting all well-pleaded
allegations in the complaint as true, the Court
‘consider[s] the factual allegations in [the] complaint
to determine if they plausibly suggest an entitlement to
relief.'” Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d
380, 383 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
681) (alteration in original). “[P]leadings that . . .
are no more than conclusions are not entitled to the
assumption of truth. While legal conclusions can provide the
framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual
allegations.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; see
also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 n.3 (“Rule 8(a)(2)
still requires a ‘showing, ' rather than a blanket
assertion, of entitlement to relief. Without some factual
allegation in the complaint, it is hard to see how a claimant
could satisfy the requirement of providing not only
‘fair notice' of the nature of the claim, but also
‘grounds' on which the claim rests.”).
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 and citation 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).
The Court is not required to create a claim for the
plaintiff. Clark v. Nat'l Travelers Life Ins.
Co., 518 F.2d 1167, 1169 (6th Cir. 1975); see also
Brown v. Matauszak, 415 F.App'x 608, 613 (6th Cir.
2011) (“[A] court cannot create a claim which [a
plaintiff] has not spelled out in his pleading”)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Payne v.
Sec'y of Treas., 73 F. App'x 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”).
federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and
Plaintiff has the burden of proving the Court's
jurisdiction. United States v. Horizon Healthcare, 160 F.3d
326, 329 (6th Cir. 1998). Even where subject matter
jurisdiction is not raised by the parties, the Court must
consider the issue sua sponte. See City of Kenosha v. Bruno,
412 U.S. 507, 511 (1973); Norris v. Schotten, 146 F.3d 314,
324 (6th Cir. 1998); Mickler v. Nimishillen & Tuscarawas
Ry. Co., 13 F.3d 184, 189 (6th Cir. 1993).
extent that Plaintiff alleges that the state court decision
deciding who would have sole custody of her son caused the
injury about which she complains, this Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's action. A federal
district court has no authority to review final judgments of
state-court judicial proceedings. District of Columbia Court
of Appeals v. ...