United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Michael H. Watson, Judge
ORDER AND INITIAL SCREEN REPORT AND
ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Thomas Albert, an Ohio citizen who is proceeding without the
assistance of counsel, brings this action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 against Gary C. Mohr, Director of the Ohio
Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections, and Andre
Imbrogno, Chairperson of the Ohio Adult Parole Board
(collectively “Defendants”), all of whom are Ohio
citizens. Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma
pauperis is GRANTED. All judicial
officers who render services in this action shall do so as if
the costs had been prepaid. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). This
matter is before the United States Magistrate Judge for the
initial screen of Plaintiff's Complaint and Amended
Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to identify
cognizable claims and to recommend dismissal of
Plaintiff's Complaint, or any portion of it, which is
frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2). Having performed the initial screen, for the
reasons that follow, it is RECOMMENDED that
the Court DISMISS this Plaintiff's
claims against Defendants for failure to assert any claim
over which this Court has subject matter jurisdiction.
enacted 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the federal in forma
pauperis statute, seeking to “lower judicial
access barriers to the indigent.” Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). In doing so, however,
“Congress recognized that ‘a litigant whose
filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike
a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain
from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive
lawsuits.'” Id. at 31 (quoting Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989)). To address this
concern, Congress included subsection (e) as part of the
statute, which provides in pertinent part:
(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof,
that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at
any time if the court determines that--
* * *
(B) the action or appeal--
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;
or . . . .
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii);
Denton, 504 U.S. at 31. Thus, § 1915(e)
requires sua sponte dismissal of an action upon the
Court's determination that the action is frivolous or
malicious, or upon determination that the action fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
federal court has limited subject matter jurisdiction.
“The basic statutory grants of federal court
subject-matter jurisdiction are contained in 28 U.S.C. §
1331, which provides for ‘[f]ederal-question'
jurisdiction, and § 1332, which provides for
‘[d]iversity of citizenship' jurisdiction.”
Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 501 (2006).
Federal-question jurisdiction is invoked when a plaintiff
pleads a claim “arising under” the federal laws,
the Constitution, or treaties of the United States.
Id. (citation omitted). For a federal court to have
diversity jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1332(a), there
must be complete diversity, which means that each plaintiff
must be a citizen of a different state than each defendant,
and the amount in controversy must exceed $75, 000.
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996).
to the Complaint and Amended Complaint, Defendants were
involved in various capacities with Plaintiff's denial of
parole. (ECF No. 1-1 at 2-3 & 1-6 at 2.) On May 1, 2014,
and March 1, 2017, Plaintiff was denied parole by the Ohio
Adult Parole Board. (ECF No. 1-1 at 3.) Plaintiff alleges
that an intentionally inaccurate report of his previous
convictions caused these denials and that Defendants are
responsible for the inaccuracies. (Id. at 2-4.)
Plaintiff maintains that Defendants thereby violated his due
process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. (Id.
At 4.) Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive ...