United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
HONORABLE SARA LIOI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
se plaintiff Samuel Darnell Yates (“Yates”)
brings this action against Troy Lee Yates. (Doc. No. 1
(“Compl.”).) Yates moves to proceed with this
action in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2), and that
motion is granted.
reasons that follow, this case is dismissed.
brings this action for breach of contract pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1332, diversity of citizenship, against Troy
Lee Yates. Although difficult to discern, it appears that
Yates was promised one-half ownership of certain real
property in 2009, which he has not received. Yates asks this
Court to require Troy Lee Yates to sign over half of his
ownership in the property at issue to plaintiff. (Compl. at
Standard of Review
se pleadings are held to “less stringent standards
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers” and must be
liberally construed. Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S.
364, 365, 102 S.Ct. 700, 70 L.Ed.2d 551 (1982) (per curiam)
(citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct.
594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972)); see also Franklin v.
Rose, 765 F.2d 82, 85 (6th Cir. 1985) (pro se
complaints are entitled to liberal construction) (citations
omitted). That said, the Court is not required to conjure
unpleaded facts or construct claims on Plaintiff's
behalf. See Grinter v. Knight, 532 F.3d 567, 577
(6th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted); Beaudett v. City of
Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1277-78 (4th Cir. 1985).
district courts are expressly required, under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B), to review all in forma
pauperis complaints filed in federal court and to
dismiss before service any such complaint that the court
determines is frivolous or 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 Hill
v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470 (6th Cir. 2010). Moreover,
“[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the
action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and “have a
duty to consider their subject matter jurisdiction in regard
to every case and may raise the issue sua
sponte.” Answers in Genesis of Ky., Inc. v.
Creation Ministries Int'l, Ltd., 556 F.3d 459, 465
(6th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). Generally speaking, the
Constitution and Congress have given federal courts authority
over a case only when the action raises a federal question or
when diversity of citizenship exists between the parties.
See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392,
107 S.Ct. 2425, 96 L.Ed.2d 318 (1987) (“Absent
diversity of citizenship, federal-question jurisdiction is
brings this case pursuant to the Court's diversity
jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction is applicable to cases
of sufficient value between citizens of different states. 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). To establish diversity of
citizenship, a plaintiff must show that he is a citizen of
one state and all the defendants are citizens of other
are no allegations in the complaint from which this Court may
infer the existence of diversity jurisdiction. Yates does not
provide citizenship information regarding himself or Troy Lee
Yates, but lists the address of both in Akron, Ohio.
(See Compl. at 1-3.) A party seeking to bring a case
into federal court bears the burden of establishing
jurisdiction. Boladian v. UMG Recordings, Inc., 123
Fed.Appx. 165, 167 (6th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). Even
assuming the jurisdictional amount of $75, 000.00 is
satisfied, Yates has failed to establish that he and Troy Lee
Yates are citizens of different states.
Court, therefore, lacks subject matter jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. There being no other basis for the
Court's subject matter jurisdiction apparent from the
face of the complaint, this action is dismissed pursuant to
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and Rule 12(h)(3). See Carlock v.
Williams, 182 F.3d 916 (Table) (6th Cir. 1999) (when the
face of the complaint provides no basis for federal
jurisdiction, the action may be dismissed as frivolous and