United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
JERROLD G. THOMAS, PLAINTIFF,
R-CAP SECURITY, et al., DEFENDANTS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
A. BARKER JUDGE
se plaintiff Jerrold G. Thomas (“Thomas”)
brings this action against defendants R-Cap Security and
CCA-Division of Taxation (“Tax Department”) for
“Unfair Treatment and Harassment” by defendants.
(Doc. No. 1.) Thomas seeks to proceed with this action in
forma pauperis, and that motion is granted. (Doc. No.
reasons that follow, this action is dismissed.
legal claims in his brief complaint are difficult to discern.
Thomas states that he sought services earlier this year at
205 West St. Clair in Cleveland, Ohio (the
“Location”) on multiple occasions. He alleges
that R-Cap Security guard “Ed” threatened to
fight him while at the Location and tried to intimidate him
at a supermarket by almost bumping into him and by riding by
him in a vehicle. (Doc. No. 1 at 1-2.) According to the complaint,
another R-Cap Security guard, Shanay Smith
(“Smith”) engaged in a private telephone
conversation while also talking with him “as if I was
not an adult seeking service” at the Location. In
addition, Thomas states that Smith stared at him in public as
if he was a bad person and he was photographed while entering
the Location “as if I was a fugitive.”
respect to defendant Tax Department, Thomas claims that his
problems began with “Liz.” Thomas states that
when he entered the office, Liz told him that he was in an
administrative office and he needed to go to another floor
for services. But when Thomas asked her to explain the
difference between the administrative office and the floor
she directed him to for services, Liz “never told me
and kept stalling[.]” Thomas claims that Liz got quiet
and started to cry, and another co-worker came from a back
office and “started at me like she was going to grab
me.” Then R-Cap Security guard Ed arrived and asked him
to leave and became “real aggressive” with him.
(Id. at 2.)
claims that he repeatedly emailed and called the owner of
R-Cap Security, Charlotte Perkins (“Perkins”),
about these issues but was ultimately told not to e-mail or
call Perkins. Nevertheless, Thomas sent Perkins an email
complaining about the treatment he received and stating that
he would “seek further action such as [a] complaint to
the courts.” (Id.)
does not state the relief he seeks from this Court.
Law and Analysis
se pleadings are held to “less stringent standards
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers” and must be
liberally construed. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520 (1972); 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 Thomas' 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). “If 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 authority
to decide only the cases that the Constitution and Congress
have empowered them to resolve. See Ohio ex rel. Skaggs
v. Brunner, 549 F.3d 468, 474 (6th Cir. 2008). Federal
courts “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).
the Constitution and Congress have given federal courts
authority over a case only when the case raises a federal
question or when diversity of citizenship exists between the
parties. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S.
386, 392 (1987) (“Absent diversity of citizenship,
federal-question jurisdiction is required.”). Thomas,
as the party bringing this action in federal court, bears the
burden of establishing the Court's jurisdiction.
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S.
375, 377 (1994) (citation omitted).
first type of federal jurisdiction relies upon the presence
of a federal question. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Federal
question 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. Constr.
Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983).
Because Thomas is proceeding pro se, he enjoys the
benefit of a liberal construction of his pleading. But even
with the benefit of liberal construction, Thomas has not
alleged a federal question and none is apparent on the face
of the complaint.
second 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, Thomas
must show that he is a citizen of one state and all
defendants are citizens of other states, and that the amount
in controversy exceeds $75, 000.00. There are no allegations
in the ...