Brown v. Siers

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

ELIJAH KWAME BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action 2:20-cv-5266

Judge Sarah D. Morrison

Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura

NICHOLAS C. SIERS,

Defendant.

ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, Nicholas C. Siers, an Ohio resident, brings this action against Defendant,

Nicholas Siers, who Plaintiff appears to allege is employed as a police officer, alleging state-law

defamation claims. This matter is before the Court for the initial screen of Plaintiff’s Complaint

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to identify cognizable claims and to recommend dismissal of

Plaintiff’s Complaint, or any portion of it, which is frivolous, 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863, 865, n. 2

(6th Cir. 2000). Having performed the initial screen, for the reasons that follow, the undersigned

RECOMMENDS that the Court DISMISS Plaintiff’s action pursuant to § 1915(e)(2) for failure

to assert any claim over which this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction.

This matter is also before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to

Proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma

pauperis is GRANTED. Plaintiff is permitted to prosecute this action without prepayment of

fees or costs, and any judicial officers who render services in this action shall do so as if the costs

had been prepaid. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

I.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the federal in forma pauperis statute, Courts must sua sponte

dismiss an action upon determining that an in forma pauperis complaint fails to state a claim on

which relief can be granted. Thus, a typical initial screen involves consideration of the merits of

the claims asserted. In this case, however, upon review of Plaintiff’s Complaint, the undersigned

determines that it is unnecessary to consider the merits of the state-law defamation claims he

advances because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear such claims. When the face

of the complaint provides no basis for federal jurisdiction, the Court may dismiss an action as

frivolous and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under both 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Williams v. Cincy Urban Apts., No. 1:10-cv-153, 2010 WL 883846, at

*2 n.1 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 9, 2010) (citing Carlock v. Williams, 182 F.3d 916, 1999 WL 454880, at

*2 (6th Cir. June 22, 1999) (table)).

II.

Plaintiff’s Complaint lacks clarity. As best as the Court can discern, Plaintiff is seeking

to advance claims for libel or slander, which are state-law claims. The entirety of Plaintiff’s

Complaint reads as follows:

The Criminal Armed With, A-Gun-Employed As, A-Police-Officer Came To My

Client’s Jobs Of Kentucky Fried Chickens Restaurants, “While Elijah K. Brown

Was Working Undercover 03-14-2006 At, Kentucky Fried Chickens Two Stores

03-14-2006 As The Certified Libel And Slander Written Research Federal Libel

And Slander law Business”-Certified Business Name.

* * *

Pay Check’s Matter When Financial Compensation Financially Comes from The

Government for Libel And Slander Because Black Lives Matter. My Client Alleges

The Mental Health Personal Injury Caused By The Government 03-14-2006.

(Compl. 3–4, ECF No. 1.)

III.

Plaintiff’s allegations fail to provide a basis for a claim over which this Court has

jurisdiction. “The basic statutory grants of federal court subject-matter jurisdiction are contained

in 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides for ‘[f]ederal-question’ jurisdiction, and § 1332, which

provides for ‘[d]iversity of citizenship’ jurisdiction.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 501

(2006). Federal-question jurisdiction is invoked when a plaintiff pleads a claim “arising under”

the federal laws or the United States Constitution. Id. (citation omitted). For a federal court to

have diversity jurisdiction pursuant to § 1332(a), there must be complete diversity, which means

that each plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state than each defendant, and the amount in

controversy must exceed $75,000. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1) requires a pleading to contain “a short plain

statement of the grounds for jurisdiction.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Thus, “a plaintiff seeking

diversity jurisdiction [must] set forth the factual basis on which that jurisdiction is predicated.”

Farmer v. Fisher, 386 F. App’x 554, 556 (6th Cir. 2010); see also Kokkonen v. Guardian Life

Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) ( “[I]t is to be presumed that a cause lies outside [the

Court’s] limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party

asserting jurisdiction.”). Although this pleading standard does not require “‘detailed factual

allegations,’ a complaint will not “suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further

factual enhancement.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp.

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 557 (2007)).

In the instant case, Plaintiff asserts state-law defamation claims, which do not satisfy §

1331 because this tort claim does not involve alleged violations of federal statutes or alleged

deprivations of constitutional rights. This leaves diversity jurisdiction under § 1332(a) as the

only potential basis for this Court’s jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s allegations, however, are insufficient

to support diversity jurisdiction because it appears that (1) both Plaintiff and Defendant are

citizens of Ohio, and (2) Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that the amount in controversy

exceeds $75,000.

In summary, because Plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege facts upon which this Court

could rely to conclude that the requisite amount in controversy is satisfied, and because there is

not complete diversity between the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that the Court DISMISS

this action for failure to assert any claim over which this Court has subject matter jurisdiction

WITHOUT PREJUDICE to filing the state-law claims in state court.

IV.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4) is GRANTED.

For the reasons set forth above, it is RECOMMENDED that the Court DISMISS Plaintiff’s

Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3)

WITHOUT PREJUDICE to filing the state-law claims in state court.

PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS

If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen

(14) days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those

specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with

supporting authority for the objection(s). A Judge of this Court shall make a de novo

determination of those portions of the Report or specified proposed findings or recommendations

to which objection is made. Upon proper objections, a Judge of this Court may accept, reject, or

modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further

evidence or may recommit this matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1).

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and

Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the District Judge review the Report

and Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of

the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140

(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Chelsey M. Vascura

CHELSEY M. VASCURA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE