# Morris v. Globe Life Insurance Company

> District Court, S.D. Ohio · January 26, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10381681

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** January 26, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10381681

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

LEON A. MORRIS, : Case No. 3:22-cv-00199
:
Plaintiff, :
: District Judge Thomas M. Rose
vs. : Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry
:
GLOBE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
:
et al.,
:
:
Defendants.

ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is an inmate in state custody who is proceeding without the assistance of
counsel. By separate Order, Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
This matter is before the Court for a sua sponte review of Plaintiff’s Complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). This matter is also before the Court on the
following motions: Plaintiff’s second Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc.
10); Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 11); Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment
against Defendant Verlean Morris (Doc. 15); Plaintiff’s Motion to Obtain Public Information
and Answers (Doc. 17); Plaintiff’s Motion Supplying Fact in Support of Default Judgment
(Doc. 19); and Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. 26), which the Court understands
to be a motion to attach exhibits to his Complaint.
The Court GRANTS the motion to amend (Doc. 26) to the extent that the exhibits
submitted with the motion will be considered with the Complaint. Cf. Jackson v. United States,
No. 19-cv-3560, 2019 WL 4034731, at *1 n.2 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 27, 2019). The motion to amend
(Doc. 26) is DENIED in all other respects. However, for the following reasons, the
undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court DISMISS this action under 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The

undersigned further RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s remaining motions (Docs. 10, 11, 15, 17
and 19) be DENIED as moot.
I. LEGAL STANDARDS
A. Initial Screening of the Complaint
In enacting the original in forma pauperis statute, Congress recognized that a “litigant
whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an
economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.” Denton
v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989)).
To prevent such abusive litigation, Congress has authorized federal courts to dismiss an in
forma pauperis complaint if they are satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious. Id.; see

also 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and 1915A(b)(1). A complaint may be dismissed as
frivolous when the plaintiff cannot make any claim with a rational or arguable basis in fact or
law. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328-29 (1989); see also Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d
1196, 1198 (6th Cir. 1990). An action has no arguable legal basis when the defendant is
immune from suit or when the plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest which clearly does
not exist. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. An action has no arguable factual basis when the allegations
are delusional or rise to the level of the irrational or “wholly incredible.” Denton, 504 U.S. at
32; Lawler, 898 F.2d at 1199. The Court need not accept as true factual allegations that are
“fantastic or delusional” in reviewing a complaint for frivolousness. Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d
468, 471 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328).
Congress also has authorized the sua sponte dismissal of complaints that fail to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1). A

complaint filed by a pro se plaintiff must be “liberally construed” and “held to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007) (per curiam) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). By the same token,
however, the complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also Hill, 630 F.3d at
470-71 (“dismissal standard articulated in Iqbal and Twombly governs dismissals for failure to
state a claim” under §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)).
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The Court must accept all well-
pleaded factual allegations as true, but need not “accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a
factual allegation.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286
(1986)). Although a complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” it must provide
“more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). A pleading that offers “labels and conclusions” or “a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at
555. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders “naked assertion[s]” devoid of “further factual
enhancement.” Id. at 557. The complaint must “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . .
claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93 (citations omitted).
B. Review of the Complaint for Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
In addition to the §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b) review, the Court must dismiss an action if

it determines at any time that the action lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. 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) (Weber, D.J.) (citing Carlock v. Williams, 182 F.3d 916, 1999 WL 454880,
at *2 (6th Cir. June 22, 1999) (table)). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1), a
pleading must contain “a short and plain statement of the grounds for 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 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which provides for
‘diversity of citizenship’ jurisdiction.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 501 (2006).
Federal-question jurisdiction exists when a plaintiff’s claim “aris[es] under the federal
laws or the Constitution.” Id. A federal court has diversity jurisdiction where: 1) the amount in

controversy exceeds $75,000; and 2) there is complete diversity (which means that each plaintiff
is a citizen of a different state than each defendant). 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1); see also Arbaugh,
546 U.S. at 501; Caterpillar, Inc, 519 U.S. at 68; Evanston Ins. Co. v. Housing. Auth. of
Somerset, 867 F.3d 653, 656 (6th Cir. 2017) (“A federal court has [diversity] jurisdiction only if
complete diversity exists, only if each of the plaintiffs comes from a different State from each of
the defendants”) (internal citation omitted).
II. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants for claims arising out of the distribution of
his late son’s life insurance policy (“the policy’). (Doc. 1-1, PageID 5-7.) In the Complaint,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Verlean Morris, his ex-wife, fraudulently attempted to cancel the
policy. (Id. at PageID 6.) Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Globe Life Insurance Company
(“Globe Life”) violated his constitutional rights by starting the cancellation process of the policy.
Plaintiff asserts that such actions are contrary to Globe Life’s rules, regulations, and policies, as

well as his constitutional rights. (Id.) According to Plaintiff, Defendant Globe Life subsequently
required him to sign a document “under serious duress,” apparently so that he could receive
distribution of his portion of the policy. (Id. at PageID 6-7.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendant
Globe Life “willfully, unlawfully, with malice and forethought violated [his] constitutional rights
to be free from discrimanation [sic], cruel and unusual punishment, due process, and equal
protection.” (Id. at PageID 6.) Plaintiff additionally claims that Defendants’ actions caused his
son’s funeral to be delayed. (Id. at PageID 7.)
Plaintiff asserts that his claims are authorized under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to “redress the
deprivation, under color of State Law, of rights secured by the constitution of the U[nited]
S[tates].” (Doc. 1-1, PageID 5.) He states that this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1331 and 1343(A)(3). Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202,
and he seeks injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2283 and 2284 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 65.
(Doc. 1-1, PageID 5.) Specifically, Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages of $3,000,000; “cost in
lawsuit” of $100,000; and “any additional cost[s the] Court deems just, proper, [and] equitable.”
(Id. at PageID 7.) He also demands a jury trial. (Id.)
The Court accepts these factual allegations as true for purposes of this screen. Twombly,
550 U.S. at 570. Even so, Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed because the action is
frivolous, and because this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction.
A. Plaintiff’s Complaint Is Frivolous under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii) and
1915A(b)

First, Plaintiff’s Complaint is frivolous under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii) and
1915A(b). As discussed above, Plaintiff alleges that this action is authorized by 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. (Doc. 1-1, PageID 5.) Plaintiff claims that the Defendants broke federal, state, and local
laws and violated his constitutional rights. (Doc. 1-1, PageID 5-6.) He further asserts that the
Defendants “must be held liable for all damages caused by their willful and unlawful conduct.”
(Id. at PageID 7.)
These claims lack any rational or arguable basis in fact or law. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328-
29. While complaints filed by pro se plaintiffs should be liberally construed, the claim must still
be plausible on its face. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Verlean
Morris “called and cancelled” the policy and that Defendant Globe Life “began the cancellation”
of the policy. (Doc. 1-1, PageID 6.) However, Plaintiff does not assert that Globe Life actually
cancelled the policy or that he was not paid his contractual share of the policy. (Id.)1 Indeed,
Plaintiff states that he signed a notarized form and that his son’s funeral proceeded, albeit several

1A letter from Defendant Globe Life that Plaintiff has moved to attach as an exhibit to his Complaint states:

The surrender check was stopped due to the fact that you, Leon Morris, Sr., as a
co-Owner had not approved the surrender. The policy was then reinstated with the
same terms, beneficiary, and ownership that was established at the original issue
and maintained until the Insured’s passing.

(Doc. 26, at PageID 113). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c) (providing that “an exhibit to a pleading is a part of the
pleading for all purposes”). Cf. Fishman v. Williams, No. CV 14-4823 MWF(JC), 2016 WL 11484591, at *7
(C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2016) (“When screening a pro se plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
the Court may consider facts drawn from the complaint and supporting exhibits attached thereto.”); Johnson
v. Buffalo Pub. Schools: Adult Educ. Div., No. 19-CV-1484 (JLS), 2021 WL 9455714, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Jan.
7, 2021) (“The Court deems the attachments and exhibits attached to Johnson’s Complaint part of the
pleading and considers them, to the extent they are relevant, in its screening decision.”). Plaintiff has also
filed a document titled “Evidence of Coercion, Duress, and Economic Duress by Globe Life Insurance
Company” (Doc. 25), which appears to consist primarily of copies of email and facsimile correspondence
and Facebook posts. Although Plaintiff has not moved to attach the contents of this document to his
Complaint, the Court has considered the submission in an abundance of caution, and it does not change the
Court’s analysis herein.
months after his son’s death. (Id. at PageID 6-7). Plaintiff also alleges three million dollars in
compensatory damages, but he does not assert or plead in the Complaint how much the policy
was worth. (Id. at PageID 5-7.)
Additionally, although Plaintiff cites to several federal laws in his Complaint, the facts

that Plaintiff alleges do not involve any violations of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff’s
Complaint instead presents a state-law claim for breach of contract or a fraud-related action.
Thus, Plaintiff’s civil rights claims lack any rational or arguable basis in law. Therefore, the
Court should DISMISS Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii) and
1915A(b) because it is frivolous.
B. This Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Complaint
The Court should also dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint because there is no plausible legal
basis for establishing subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Plaintiff attempts to invoke
federal question jurisdiction by citing to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(A)(3). (Doc. 1-1, PageID
5.) Plaintiff’s cause of action must be based on federal law in order for the Court to have subject-

matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. But Plaintiff has not identified any claim arising
under federal law or under the Constitution or treaties of the United States that is sufficient to
establish subject matter jurisdiction under Section 1331.
Plaintiff’s reference to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(A)(3) in support of his assertion of federal
question jurisdiction is misplaced. (Doc. 1-1, PageID 5.) Section 1343(A)(3) of Title 28 of the
United States Code provides original jurisdiction for federal district courts in order for a plaintiff
“to redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or
usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by
any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction
of the United States.” But as discussed above, the facts alleged by Plaintiff do not involve any
violations of his constitutional rights. Instead, Plaintiff’s Complaint presents a state-law claim for
breach of contract or a fraud-related action. For these reasons, Plaintiff has not established a
federal question that gives rise to this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Although not specifically alleged, Plaintiff’s claim also does not meet the requirements of
diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 to establish subject matter jurisdiction. Here,
Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the complete diversity requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff
admits that both he and Defendant Verlean Morris are residents of Ohio. (Doc. 1-3, PageID 9).
He does not allege that Ms. Morris may be domiciled elsewhere for purposes of determining her
state of citizenship. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege diversity of citizenship
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 to establish this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.
For these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint is frivolous under 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii) and 1915A(b), and that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. 26) is GRANTED to the
extent that the exhibits submitted with the motion will be considered with
the Complaint but is DENIED in all other respects.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. Plaintiff’s Complaint be DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2),
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3);

2. The Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that for the foregoing
reasons an appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation
would not be taken in good faith and therefore deny Plaintiff leave to appeal
in forma pauperis. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir.
1997);
3. Plaintiff’s second Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc.
10) be DENIED as moot;

4. Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 11) be DENIED as moot;

5. Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant Verlean Morris
(Doc. 15) be DENIED as moot;

6. Plaintiff’s Motion to Obtain Public Information and Answers (Doc. 17) be
DENIED as moot; and

7. Plaintiff’s Motion Supplying Fact in Support of Default Judgment (Doc.
19) be DENIED as moot.

NOTICE OF PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS:
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy of
the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations. This period may be extended further by the Court on
timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected
to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report
and Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring on the record at an oral
hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such
portions of it as all parties may agree upon, or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the
assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party’s objections
WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in
accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

/s/ Caroline H. Gentry
Caroline H. Gentry
United States Magistrate Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10381681. Public record. Not legal advice.