Jones v. Wayne County Court of Common Pleas Clerk of Courts, 5:15-cv-01858

Plaintiff Jason Keith Jones, proceeding pro se, filed a civil action seeking damages and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
Jones’s pleading was captioned as a “Motion for Common Law Action Against Trespass of Rights and Property” and contained largely incoherent legal assertions.
The only decipherable allegation was that the Wayne County Clerk and Tim Neal conspired to "trespass" Jones by refusing to file his purported "Common Law Liens."
The court reviewed the complaint under the screening obligations of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for IFP plaintiffs.
The court concluded the complaint failed to state a plausible federal claim and did not meet basic pleading requirements; the court noted it is not required to invent allegations for a pro se litigant.
The court granted IFP status but dismissed the complaint and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the complaint states a plausible federal claim	Jones alleges defendants conspired to "trespass" him by refusing to file his common law liens and seeks damages	Defendants’ position (as reflected by the court) is that the complaint lacks factual allegations and legal basis to state a federal claim	Dismissed for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
Whether the IFP complaint is frivolous or malicious	Jones contends his filings assert legal rights via common law liens	Court found the allegations incoherent, conclusory, and insufficient to overcome screening standards	Court held complaint was frivolous/insufficient and subject to dismissal
Whether the court must supply additional factual allegations for a pro se plaintiff	Jones implicitly relied on liberal construction of pro se pleadings to sustain the claim	Court cited that liberal construction does not require courts to conjure allegations on plaintiff’s behalf	Court applied pleading standards and did not amend or supplement the complaint
Whether an appeal would be taken in good faith	Jones could appeal the dismissal	Defendants did not show appeal would be in good faith; court assessed under § 1915(a)(3)	Court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se pleadings are liberally construed)
Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468 (6th Cir. 2010) (§ 1915(e)(2)(B) screening standard and applicability of Twombly/Iqbal)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim; legal conclusions insufficient)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
Lillard v. Shelby Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 76 F.3d 716 (6th Cir. 1996) (court need not accept unwarranted legal conclusions or summary allegations)