United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER
R. ADAMS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
se Plaintiff Karen Dortch filed this action against Dr.
Peterson, the Cleveland Clinic and Akron General Hospital.
The handwritten Complaint is difficult to decipher. She
states she went to the Cleveland Clinic Akron General
Hospital for an MRI scan of her brain. She mentions toxic
fumes from natural gas, and indicates she was taken to the
psychiatric floor. She contends she was not free to leave.
She states Dr. Peterson found nothing and let her go. She
does not specify the legal claims she intends to assert or
the relief she seeks.
filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
(Doc. No. 2). That Application is granted.
Standard of Review
pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag
v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam);
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the
Court is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis
action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) if it fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted, or if it lacks an
arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d
1196 (6th Cir. 1990); Sistrunk v. City of
Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996). A claim
lacks an arguable basis in law or fact when it is premised on
an indisputably meritless legal theory or when the factual
contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S.
at 327. A cause of action fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted when it lacks “plausibility in
the Complaint.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 564 (2007).
pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
677-78 (2009). The factual allegations in the pleading must
be sufficient to raise the right to relief above the
speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations
in the Complaint are true. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
The Plaintiff is not required to include detailed factual
allegations, but must provide more than “an unadorned,
the Defendant unlawfully harmed me accusation.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pleading that offers legal
conclusions or a simple recitation of the elements of a cause
of action will not meet this pleading standard. Id.
In reviewing a Complaint, the Court must construe the
pleading in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff.
Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 151 F.3d 559,
561 (6th Cir. 1998).
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and, unlike state
trial courts, they do not have general jurisdiction to review
all questions of law. See Ohio ex rel. Skaggs v.
Brunner, 549 F.3d 468, 474 (6th Cir. 2008). Instead,
they have only the authority to decide cases that the
Constitution and Congress have empowered them to resolve.
Id. Consequently, “[i]t is to be presumed that
a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the
burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party
asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life
Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377(1994) (internal
speaking, the Constitution and Congress have given federal
courts authority to hear a case only when diversity of
citizenship exists between the parties, or when the case
raises a federal question. Caterpillar Inc. v.
Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). The first type of
federal jurisdiction, diversity of citizenship, is applicable
to cases of sufficient value between “citizens of
different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). To
establish diversity of citizenship, the Plaintiff must
establish that he is a citizen of one state and all of the
Defendants are citizens of other states. The citizenship of a
natural person equates to his domicile. Von Dunser v.
Aronoff, 915 F.2d 1071, 1072 (6th Cir.1990). The second
type of federal jurisdiction relies on the presence of a
federal question. This type of jurisdiction arises where a
“well-pleaded Complaint establishes either that federal
law creates the cause of action or that the Plaintiff's
right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a
substantial question of federal law.” Franchise Tax
Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1,
of citizenship does not exist in this case. Plaintiff
indicates she resides in Ohio. She names two Ohio hospitals
and an Ohio physician. A Plaintiff in Federal Court has the
burden of pleading sufficient facts to support the existence
of the Court's jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. In a
diversity action, the Plaintiff must state the citizenship of
all parties so that the existence of complete diversity can
be confirmed. Washington v. Sulzer Orthopedics,
Inc., No. 03-3350, 2003 WL 22146143, at *1 (6th Cir.
Sept. 16, 2003). Furthermore Plaintiff does not specify her
damages so she fails to establish the amount in controversy.
Federal subject matter jurisdiction cannot be based on
diversity of citizenship.
federal jurisdiction exists in this case, it must be based on
a claimed violation of federal law. Here, Plaintiff is
proceeding pro se and pro se Plaintiffs
enjoy the benefit of a liberal construction of their
pleadings and filings. Boswell v. Mayer, 169 F.3d
384, 387 (6th Cir. 1999). Indeed, this standard of liberal
construction “requires active interpretation ... to
construe a pro se petition ‘to encompass any
allegation stating federal relief.'”
Haines, 404 U.S. at 520. Even with that liberal
construction, however, the Court is unable to identify a
federal claim on the face of the Complaint and Plaintiff does
not reference a federal cause of action. Jurisdiction cannot
be based on the presence of a federal question.
Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is granted, and this action is
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §1915(e). The Court certifies, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § ...