The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
CHARLES BROWN, ) CASE NO. 1:21 CV 1643
)
Plaintiff, ) JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT
)
Vv. )
) MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
LORAIN COUNTY )
SHERIFF’S OFFICE, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
Pro se Plaintiff Charles Brown filed this defamation action against the Lorain County
Sheriff's Office, Cathy Cornish, Stuart C. Confied and Sgt. Diana Nichall. In the Complaint,
Plaintiff alleges Cornish required him to register as a sexual offender prior to the reversal of his
conviction by the Ohio Court of Appeals. He claims she did not issue a public apology when his
conviction was overturned. He asserts claims for defamation of character and emotional distress
and seeks monetary damages.
Plaintiff also filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc. No. 2). That
Application is granted.
Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff was convicted on March 12, 2018 of attempted sexual battery of his daughter.
The Court sentenced him on March 21, 2018 to fourteen months in prison and classified him as a
tier III sexual offender. He indicates that when he was released from prison, he received a
telephone call from Cornish telling him to come to the Sheriff’s Office and register as a sexual
offender. Plaintiff told her he was innocent and stated that his appeal of his conviction was still
pending. He contends that Cornish hated him. He states he did not want to sign registration
forms but Cornish told him that if he did not sign them, he would be arrested. He indicated that
the forms should state he was convicted of attempted sexual battery and not sexual battery. He
alleges after he registered, flyers were posted around town saying that he had been convicted of
sexual battery. When his conviction was reversed, he called the Sheriff's Office and asked them
to publish a retraction or an apology. They declined to do so. He claims these actions ruined his
business and his reputation. He asserts claims for defamation and emotional distress.
Standard of Review
Although 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 US. at 327.
A cause 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. Igbal , 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009). The factual allegations in the
-2-
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. Jd. 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)
Discussion
Federal 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. Jd. 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 citation omitted).
Generally 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 he is a citizen of one state and all of the Defendants are citizens of
-3-
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 Plaintiff's 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 (1983).
Diversity of citizenship does not exist in this case. Plaintiff indicates he resides in Elyria,
Ohio. He does not list any other address for himself. All of the Defendants are listed as
employees of the Lorain County Sheriff’s Office, also in Ohio. A Plaintiff in federal court has
the burden of pleading sufficient facts to support the existence of the court’s jurisdiction.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. In a diversity action, the Plaintiff must state the citizenship of all parties so that
the existence of complete diversity can be confirmed. Washington v. Sulzer Orthopedics, Inc.,
No. 03-3350, 2003 WL 22146143, at *1 (6th Cir. Sept. 16, 2003). The Complaint, as written,
suggests that the Plaintiff and Defendants are all citizens of Ohio. Federal subject matter
jurisdiction cannot be based on diversity of citizenship.
If federal jurisdiction exists in this case, it must be based on a claimed violation of federal
law. In determining whether a claim arises under federal law, the Court looks only to the
“well-pleaded allegations of the Complaint and ignores potential defenses” Defendant may raise.
Mikulski v. Centerior Energy Corp., 501 F.3d 555, 560 (6th Cir. 2007). Although the
well-pleaded-complaint rule focuses on what Plaintiff alleges, it allows the Court to look past the
words of the Complaint to determine whether the allegations ultimately involve a federal
question. Ohio ex rel. Skaggs, 549 F.3d at 475. In addition to causes of action expressly created
-4-
by federal law, federal-question jurisdiction also reaches ostensible state-law claims that: (1)
necessarily depend on a substantial and disputed federal issue, (2) are completely preempted by
federal law or (3) are truly federal-law claims in disguise. See Mikulski, 501 F.3d at 560; City of
Warren vy. City of Detroit, 495 F.3d 282, 286 (6th Cir. 2007).
Here, Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and pro se Plaintiffs enjoy the benefit of a liberal
construction of their pleadings and filings. Boswell v. Mayer, 169 F.3d 384, 387 (6th Cir. 1999).
Indeed, this standard of liberal construction “requires active interpretation ... to construe a pro se
petition ‘to encompass any allegation stating federal relief.’” Haines, 404 U.S. at 520. Even
with that liberal construction, however, Plaintiff failed to properly identify a federal question in
this case. Defamation and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress are torts that arise, if at
all, under state law. They do not provide a basis for federal court subject matter jurisdiction.
Conclusion
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is
granted and this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e) for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this
decision could not be taken in good faith.'
IT IS SO ORDERED.
UNITED STATES DISTRIGT JUDGE
Dated: | 1% K
' 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides:
An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies that it is not
taken in good faith.
-5-