Rousseau v. Government of Tennessee

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
________________________________________________________________
PAMELA RENEE ROUSSEAU, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 25-cv-2949-MSN-tmp
)
TENNESSEE, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
________________________________________________________________
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
________________________________________________________________
Before the court is pro se plaintiff Pamela Renee Rousseau’s
Complaint.1 	(ECF 	No. 	2.) 	Because 	Rousseau 	is 	proceeding 	in 	forma
pauperis, the undersigned must screen the complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 	§ 	1915(e)(2).2 	For 	the 	reasons 	below, 	the 	undersigned
recommends that Rousseau’s complaint be dismissed.
I. 	PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
Rousseau’s complaint was filed on October 14, 2025. (ECF No.
2.) 	In 	her 	complaint, 	which 	is 	styled 	as 	a 	§ 	1983 	civil 	rights
claim, 	she 	states 	that 	“[a]t 	birth 	[she] 	was 	issued 	a 	birth
certificate 	and 	social 	security 	number 	that 	. 	. 	. 	are 	linked 	to
1Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2013-05, 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.
2The 	undersigned 	granted 	Rousseau 	leave 	to 	proceed 	in 	forma
pauperis on December 5, 2025. (ECF No. 8.)
Case 2:25-cv-02949-MSN-tmp Document 9 Filed 12/05/25 Page 1 of 5 PageID
<pageID>

- 2 -
financial 	instrument 	trades 	on 	[the] 	global 	market 	without 	[her]
knowledge 	or 	consent.” 	(Id. 	at 	PageID 	2.) 	She 	states 	that 	“[t]he
number 	on 	the 	back 	of 	[her] 	Social 	Security 	card, 	in 	particular,
appears to be tied to an account or instrument used within global
markets.” (Id. at PageID 5.) She requests “full disclosure of any
financial activity or bond associated with [her] birth certificate
or 	Social 	Security 	number[,]” 	“a 	written 	statement 	confirming 	or
denying any such use of [her] identity for financial purposes[,]”
and “compensation of $10,000,000 for the unauthorized use of [her]
legal identity and the violation of [her] human and civil rights.”
(Id. at PageID 5-6.)
II. 	PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. 	Standard of Review
This court is required to screen in forma pauperis complaints
and 	must 	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; 	or 	(iii) 	seeks 	monetary 	relief
against 	a 	defendant 	who 	is 	immune 	from 	such 	relief. 	28 	U.S.C. 	§
1915(e)(2)(B)(i-iii). 	To 	avoid 	dismissal 	for 	failure 	to 	state 	a
claim, 	“a 	complaint 	must 	contain 	sufficient 	factual 	matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its 	face.” 	Ashcroft 	v. 	Iqbal, 	556 	U.S. 	662, 	678 	(2009); 	see 	also
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “A claim is plausible on its face if the
‘plaintiff 	pleads 	factual 	content 	that 	allows 	the 	court 	to 	draw
Case 2:25-cv-02949-MSN-tmp Document 9 Filed 12/05/25 Page 2 of 5 PageID
<pageID>

- 3 -
the 	reasonable 	inference 	that 	the 	defendant 	is 	liable 	for 	the
misconduct 	alleged.’” 	Ctr. 	for 	Bio-Ethical 	Reform, 	Inc. 	v.
Napolitano, 648 F.3d 365, 369 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678); see also Crestman as Next Friend to Wooden v. Metro.
Gov’t 	of 	Nash. 	and 	Davidson 	Cnty., 	Tenn., 	No. 	24-6018, 	2025 	WL
2650582, 	at 	*2 	(6th 	Cir. 	Sept. 	16, 	2025). 	Without 	factual
allegations in support, mere legal conclusions are not entitled to
the assumption of truth. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
Pro 	se 	complaints 	are 	held 	to 	less 	stringent 	standards 	than
formal 	pleadings 	drafted 	by 	lawyers 	and 	are 	thus 	liberally
construed. Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir. 2011);
Kremer 	v. 	Unilever, 	PLC, 	No. 	24-cv-01410, 	2025 	WL 	2674556, 	at 	*6
(M.D. Tenn Sept. 18, 2025). Even so, pro se litigants must adhere
to 	the 	Federal 	Rules 	of 	Civil 	Procedure, 	see 	Wells 	v. 	Brown, 	891
F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989); Kremer, 2025 WL 2674556, at *6, and
the 	court 	cannot 	create 	a 	claim 	that 	has 	not 	been 	spelled 	out 	in
a 	pleading. 	See 	Brown 	v. 	Matauszak, 	415 	F. 	App’x 	608, 	613 	(6th
Cir. 	2011); 	Payne 	v. 	Sec’y 	of 	Treas., 	73 	F. 	App’x 	836, 	837 	(6th
Cir. 2003); Wooden v. Lee, No. 24-cv-01052, 2025 WL 2678796, at *5
(W.D. Tenn. Sept. 18, 2025).
B. 	Section 1983 Claims
Rousseau’s 	complaint 	is 	styled 	as 	an 	action 	brought 	under 	§
1983. 	“To 	succeed 	on 	a 	§ 	1983 	claim, 	a 	plaintiff 	must 	first
identify 	a 	constitutional 	right, 	then 	show 	that 	a 	person 	acting
Case 2:25-cv-02949-MSN-tmp Document 9 Filed 12/05/25 Page 3 of 5 PageID
<pageID>

- 4 -
under the color of state law deprived him of that right.” Susselman
v. 	Washtenaw 	Cty. 	Sheriff’s 	Office, 	109 	F.4th 	864, 	870 	(6th 	Cir.
2024) 	(citing 	Troutman 	v. 	Louisville 	Metro 	Dep’t 	of 	Corr., 	979
F.3d 472, 482 (6th Cir. 2020)). Rousseau brings her claim against
the State of Tennessee.
States 	are 	not 	considered 	“‘persons’ 	under 	§ 	1983.” 	Will 	v.
Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989); Grose v. City
of 	Bartlett, 	Nos. 	23-5937/6117, 	2025 	WL 	1158764, 	at 	*2 	(6th 	Cir.
Jan. 10, 2025). While “[§] 1983 provides a federal forum to remedy
many deprivations of civil liberties, . . . it does not provide a
federal forum for litigants who seek a remedy against a State for
alleged 	deprivations 	of 	civil 	liberties.” 	Will, 	491 	U.S. 	at 	66.
Therefore, 	Rousseau 	cannot 	bring 	a 	§ 	1983 	claim 	against 	the
defendant. 	Further, 	Rousseau 	fails 	to 	allege 	specific 	facts
regarding 	the 	defendant’s 	alleged 	wrongdoing. 	She 	also 	fails 	to
allege which of her constitutional rights were violated or that a
person 	acting 	under 	the 	color 	of 	state 	law 	deprived 	her 	of 	that
right. 	Her 	general 	allegation, 	without 	more, 	cannot 	meet 	the
pleading 	requirements 	under 	Iqbal, 	and 	her 	complaint 	therefore
fails to state a claim.
III. RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above, it is recommended that the complaint be
dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Respectfully submitted,
Case 2:25-cv-02949-MSN-tmp Document 9 Filed 12/05/25 Page 4 of 5 PageID
<pageID>

- 5 -
s/ Tu M. Pham
TU M. PHAM
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
December 5, 2025
Date
NOTICE
WITHIN 	FOURTEEN 	(14) 	DAYS 	AFTER 	BEING 	SERVED 	WITH 	A 	COPY 	OF 	THIS
REPORT 	AND 	RECOMMENDED 	DISPOSITION, 	ANY 	PARTY 	MAY 	SERVE 	AND 	FILE
SPECIFIC 	WRITTEN 	OBJECTIONS 	TO 	THE 	PROPOSED 	FINDINGS 	AND
RECOMMENDATIONS. 	ANY 	PARTY 	MAY 	RESPOND 	TO 	ANOTHER 	PARTY’S
OBJECTIONS 	WITHIN 	FOURTEEN 	(14) 	DAYS 	AFTER 	BEING 	SERVED 	WITH 	A
COPY. 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	636(b)(1); 	FED. 	R. 	CIV. 	P. 	72(b)(2); 	L.R.
72.1(g)(2). 	FAILURE 	TO 	FILE 	OBJECTIONS 	WITHIN 	FOURTEEN 	(14) 	DAYS
MAY 	CONSTITUTE 	A 	WAIVER 	AND/OR 	FORFEITURE 	OF 	OBJECTIONS,
EXCEPTIONS, AND FURTHER APPEAL.
Case 2:25-cv-02949-MSN-tmp Document 9 Filed 12/05/25 Page 5 of 5 PageID
<pageID>