United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Stephanie K. Bowman United States Magistrate Judge
24, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis in the United States District
Court. (Doc. 1). Attached to Plaintiff's
motion/application is a copy of the proposed complaint. (Doc.
1-1). In that complaint, Plaintiff identifies five
Defendants: the Hamilton County C.S.E.A.; Hamilton County
Domestic Relations; Kristie L. Davis, Chief Deputy Clerk;
Moira Weir, Director; and Magistrate Nicole
General Screening Authority
separate Order issued this date, Plaintiff has been granted
leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915. Therefore, the complaint is now before
the Court for a sua sponte review to determine
whether the complaint, or any portion of it, should be
dismissed because it 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.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
has authorized federal courts to dismiss an in forma
pauperis complaint if satisfied that the action is
frivolous or malicious. Denton v. Hernandez, 504
U.S. 25, 31 (1992); see also 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A complaint may be dismissed as frivolous
when the plaintiff cannot make any claim with a rational or
arguable basis in fact or law. Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 328-29 (1989); see also Lawler v.
Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196, 1198 (6th Cir. 1990). An action
has no arguable legal basis when the defendant is immune from
suit or when plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest
which clearly does not exist. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at
has also authorized the sua sponte dismissal of
complaints which fail to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii).
Although a plaintiff's pro se complaint must be
“liberally construed” and “held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,
” the complaint must “give the defendant fair
notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which
it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93
(2007) (per curiam) (quoting Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976), and Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal
citation and quotation omitted)). The 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) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570);
see also Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th
Cir. 2010) (“dismissal standard articulated in
Iqbal and Twombly governs dismissals for
failure to state a claim” under §§
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1)).
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The Court must accept all
well-pleaded factual allegations as true, but need not
“accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual
allegation.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting
Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)).
Although a complaint need not contain “detailed factual
allegations, ” it must provide “more than an
accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). A pleading that offers
“labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Nor does a
complaint suffice if it tenders “naked
assertion[s]” devoid of “further factual
enhancement.” Id. at 557.
Plaintiff's Assertion of Claims
Plaintiff bears the burden of proving subject matter
jurisdiction. Walburn v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 431
F.3d 966, 970 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing United States ex
rel. McKenzie v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., 123
F.3d 935, 938 (6th Cir. 1997)). On the form used for his
complaint, Plaintiff has checked a box asserting the
existence of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1343(3) (a
civil rights lawsuit alleging that Defendants acted under
color of State law and deprived Plaintiff of a right secured
by federal law or the Constitution). The civil cover sheet
attached to his complaint similarly invokes this Court's
“federal question” jurisdiction, citing 42 U.S.C.
§1983 as well as a federal criminal conspiracy statute,
18 U.S.C. § 241.
Plaintiff's claims clearly arise out of proceedings in
state court in which Plaintiff was adjudged liable for child
support. Plaintiff alleges that he was put “in jail for
a dept [sic] I didn't create, ” and that Defendants
“took a loan for me in my name.” (Doc. 1-2 at 1).
Plaintiff accuses the Hamilton County Domestic Relations
court of forcing him “to consent to D.N.A. to
incriminate myself” and of using “illegal
methods” including misspelled names and incorrect
addresses. (Id. at 3). He argues that Hamilton
County C.S.E.A. threatened him “with all these statutes
that they call legal” and told him they would issues a
warrant for his arrest and/or suspend his license if he
failed to show up for court. Plaintiff alleges that
“Magistrate Nicole Sanders put me in jail multiple
times acting as Judge she denied every motion I tried to put
in wouldn't let me speak to defend myself.”
(Id.) Defendant Davis allegedly falsified documents
to build a case against Plaintiff and “didn't care
if the address was wrong or mis-spelled names she just went
along with the wrong doing.” Finally, Plaintiff alleges
that Defendant Weir “knowingly conspired” with
other Defendants. (Id.)
as an exhibit to the complaint is a Summons issued by the
Hamilton County Juvenile Court to Tracy M. Oats (allegedly
mailed to a wrong address) dated November 28, 2017. The
summons is captioned “In Re: Keshia R Grant v.
Oats” (emphasis added, denoting person Plaintiff
alleges he does not know), and appears to direct Plaintiff to
appear on January 22, 2018 to show cause why he should not be
held in Contempt of Court for his failure to comply with a
child support order. (Doc. 1-2 at 7). Also attached to
Plaintiff's complaint is a Notice from the U.S.
Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service,
which indicates that Plaintiff's payment from the
Internal Revenue Service, issued on March 20, 2019, was
reduced by $2908 based upon a child support debt owed by
Plaintiff. (Doc. 1-2 at 6).
Lack of Federal Jurisdiction and Other ...