United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Eastern Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
YORK, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
September 26, 2018, pro se plaintiff, Kimberly
Michelle Ware, filed this Complaint against the Tennessee
Human Rights Commission, Jackson Housing Authority, Madison
Place Apartments, and Madison Realty (D.E. 1). In an order
issued on October 25, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff leave
to proceed in forma pauperis (D.E. 10). This case
has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for
management and for all pretrial matters for determination
and/or report and recommendation as appropriate. (Admin.
Court is required to screen in forma pauperis
complaints and to dismiss any complaint, or any portion
thereof, if the action-
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
assessing whether the Complaint in this case states a claim
on which relief may be granted, the standards under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), as stated in Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 667-79, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949-50,
173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009), and in Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-66,
167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007), are applied. Hill v. Lappin,
630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). “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, 129 S.Ct. at 1951) (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 681, 129 S.Ct. at 1950; see
also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 n.3, 127 S.Ct. at 1964-65
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 (quoting Martin v.
Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 712 (6th Cir. 2004)). 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), reh'g
denied (Jan. 19, 1990); see also Brown v.
Matauszak, No. 09-2259, 2011 WL 285251, at *5 (6th Cir.
Jan. 31, 2011) (affirming dismissal of pro se complaint for
failure to comply with “unique pleading
requirements” and stating “a court cannot
‘create a claim which [a plaintiff] has not spelled out
in his pleading'”) (quoting Clark v. Nat'l
Travelers Life Ins. Co., 518 F.2d 1167, 1169 (6th Cir.
1975)) (alteration in original); Payne v. Secretary of
Treas., 73 Fed.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, 124 S.Ct. 2441, 2446, 159 L.Ed.2d 338 (2004)
(“District judges have no obligation to act as counsel
or paralegal to pro se litigants.”).
Plaintiff's Complaint, which appears to be the beginning
of a form document from the Circuit Court of Jackson,
Tennessee that is not applicable in this Court, she writes in
Violations against [d]isabled individual also retaliation
with Section 804(f)(2) and 804(f)(3) Title VIII of Civil
Rights Act of 1968 as amended by Fair Housing Act of 1988
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973[.] Tennessee
Human Rights Commission - party by investigating claims -
which is retaliation Jackson Housing Authority breached
concillation [sic] agreement Madison Place Apts. Retaliation
from McMillian Towers Madison Realty [retaliation] w/
dangerous living condition.
1, PageID 1). The next, and only other page of
Plaintiff's Complaint is barely legible and seems to be a
copy of the Tennessee Human Rights Commission's annual
report with other notes on legislation surrounding workplace
discrimination, and various unidentifiable notes. Here,
Plaintiff does not allege facts sufficient to satisfy the
elements of a claim. Plaintiff's Complaint, besides the
paragraph above, makes no mention of any of the factual
allegations of a claim under any of the statutes she
mentioned. Even given Plaintiff's pro se status,
Plaintiff has not provided fair notice of what her claim is
or the grounds on which it rests as required by the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at
these reasons, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this
Court dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint in its entirety,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § ...