United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
SIR ALLYN Q. HATTEN, Plaintiff,
STATE OF OHIO, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
AARON POLSTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
se Plaintiff Sir Allyn Q. Hatten brings this action
against the State of Ohio seeking a permanent injunction. In
his brief complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the State of Ohio
has a plan to libel and slander Plaintiff, which will cause
him harm that cannot be remedied by money damages because
Plaintiff “has been incarcerated as it has happened in
the past.” Doc. #: 1. In the civil cover sheet filed
with the Complaint, Plaintiff identifies Ohio Rev. Code
§ 2743.48 (Action against state for wrongful
imprisonment) as the statute under which he seeks relief, and
“false imprisonment” as his cause of action. Doc.
seeks to proceed with this action in forma paupers (Doc. #:
2), and that motion is granted.
reasons that follow, this action is dismissed.
Standard of Review
pro se pleadings are liberally construed and held to
less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365
(1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520 (1972), the district 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, 325 (1989);
Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197
(6th Cir. 1996).
Plaintiff's Complaint is entitled to liberal
construction, 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). “If the court
determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”
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, Inc. v.
Creation Ministries Int'l, Ltd., 556 F.3d 459, 465
(6th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). Plaintiff, 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)
speaking, the Constitution and Congress have given federal
courts authority over a case only when the case raises a
federal question (28 U.S.C. § 1331) or when diversity of
citizenship exists between the parties (28 U.S.C. §
1332). See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S.
386, 392 (1987) (“Absent diversity of citizenship,
federal-question jurisdiction is required.”).
Jurisdiction pursuant to § 1331 requires the presence of
a federal question, that is, 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).
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and, therefore,
enjoys the benefit of a liberal construction of the
Complaint. Boswell v. Mayer, 169 F.3d 384, 387 (6th
Cir. 1999). But even with the benefit of liberal
construction, Plaintiff has not alleged a federal question
and none is apparent on the face of the Complaint.
jurisdiction pursuant to § 1332 requires complete
diversity and an amount in controversy exceeding $75, 000.00.
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). To establish diversity of
citizenship, Plaintiff must show that he is a citizen of one
state and Defendants are citizens of other states. There are
no allegations in the Complaint from which this Court may
infer the existence of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1332.
absence of a cognizable federal question or a claim over
which this Court may exercise diversity jurisdiction, the
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and this acton is
dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3). See Rauch v. Day
& Night Mfg. Corp., 576 F.2d 697, 701 (6th Cir.
1978) (“Rule 12(h)(3) preserves and recognizes the
court's time-honored obligation, even sua
sponte, to dismiss any action over which it has no
subject-matter jurisdiction.”). To the extent that
Plaintiff is attempting to assert state law claims, those
claims are dismissed without prejudice.
of the foregoing reasons, this action is dismissed pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Plaintiff's motion to
proceed in forma pauperis is granted. Doc. #: 2. The
Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3),