Upshaw v. Maxfield

Background

Kevin Upshaw brought the action without a lawyer against Sheryl Maxfield, identified in the caption as the Director of the Ohio Department of Commerce Division of Unclaimed Funds. He sought to recover $330,157.51 in assets that he claimed had wrongfully gone to the State of Ohio. Although Upshaw paid the filing fee, the court stated that it could dismiss a complaint if it found the action frivolous.

Upshaw claimed to be the grantor and trustee of the Wilson Freight Company Trust. His submissions included 2021 documents concerning a purported Wilson Freight Company Business Trust, a 2021 New York certificate of incorporation for an entity named Wilson Freight Company, a tax form, and a claim to the Ohio Department of Commerce. The court found that the documents were not authentic and that nothing in the pleadings connected the purported trust or the 2021 company to the Wilson Freight Company that filed for bankruptcy in the Southern District of New York in 1980 and whose reorganization plan was approved in 2014.

The opinion also described Upshaw’s prior suits involving claims to abandoned or escheated assets and stated that he had twice been convicted in Massachusetts state court for forgery and false statements connected to similar claims. The court relied on these matters as part of its assessment of whether the current action was frivolous.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires a complaint to provide a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Although courts must read complaints filed without a lawyer generously, the court stated that such plaintiffs still must satisfy Rule 8.

The court concluded that Upshaw’s pleadings did not meet that requirement. It gave no weight to the purportedly notarized documents made by Upshaw as both grantor and trustee and found no plausible allegation connecting the 2021 documents to the older bankrupt company. In light of those deficiencies and Upshaw’s history of bringing similar claims, the court stated that the complaint appeared frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), “if not outright fraudulent.”

Disposition

The court dismissed the case. It did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status. Judge Edgardo Ramos directed the Clerk of Court to mail Upshaw a copy of the order and close the case.