United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
C. NUGENT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
se Plaintiff Juanita L. Gowdy filed this action against
Ohio Children and Family Services. Her Complaint, in its
From -2009-2018-1 what [sic] my name clear I do not have
Abuse or Neglect case. So please remove abuse and neglect off
of my good name Juanita Gowdy Cowen Bennett Baker I do not
have any cases in my name with neglect or abuse because Judge
Thomas F O' Malley put that on my name.
(Doc. No. 1 at 1). She does not specify the legal claims she
is asserting in this action.
also filed an Application to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis (Doc. # 2). That Application is granted.
and Procedural Background
the eighth case Plaintiff has filed pertaining to a finding
of abuse or neglect that lead to loss of her daycare license
in 2007 and placement of her granddaughter with her
biological father in 2010. All of the prior cases were dismissed
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) for failing to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff continues to
allege in this case that charges of abuse and neglect were
not brought against her. She gives no explanation or context
for the allegation. She does not assert a legal claim. She
asks this Court to clear her name.
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.
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). A 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 she 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 Plaintiffs 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, 27-28
of citizenship does not exist in this case. Plaintiff
indicates she resides in East Cleveland, Ohio. The ...