The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
JOHN HOLSEN MILLER, Case No. 1:24-cv-401
Plaintiff,
Barrett, J.
vs. Litkovitz, M.J.
GEORGE HUDSON, REPORT AND
Defendant. RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, a resident of Covington, Kentucky, has filed a pro se civil complaint against
George Hudson, a resident of Cincinnati, Ohio. (Doc. 1-1). By separate Order, plaintiff has
been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
This matter is now before the Court for a sua sponte review of the complaint to determine
whether the complaint or any portion of it should be dismissed because it 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Screening of Complaint
A. Legal Standard
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). 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, 490
U.S. at 328-29; 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 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). 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
2
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. Plaintiff’s Complaint
Plaintiff’s complaint is difficult to decipher. As such, the Court quotes plaintiff’s factual
allegations verbatim. The complaint alleges:
I John Miller start work at this wearhouse (sic) in tri-county- Cincinnati, Ohio.
Name of company Microage Distribution Center. With my rights. At that time I
had all my rights. And when I was fired I had no rights left. George Hudson told
investigator Erin Gordon from Ohio Civil Right Commission that he didn’t know
me. That was a lie. After I was fired, no one allowed to follow me. George
Hudson pin extra accusation on me child molester & I had bottle thrown at me.
While living at Cambridge Apartment in tri-county I bought a cool spaniel dog for
my kids he was dead. I move from Cincinnati Ohio to leave this crime behind.
So many lies was going around. I got my hands broke. They close the case.
(Doc. 1-1 at PAGEID 6). In the request for relief portion of his complaint plaintiff states:
All my rights been taken away & I have no opportunity left. I had apartment on
Greenup St. in Covington, Ky. I had 4 fights. I didn’t want be there anymore. 2
guys about one month ago wanted to fight me. 3 others guy wanted to do the same
thing. I was banded for one week to get food. I have to walk to Cincinnati now
for food. The police in Covington Ky. told me I should relocate. Taken all my
rights away is slander opportunity.
(Id. at PAGEID 7).
C. Resolution
3
Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to state a claim with an arguable basis in law over
which this federal Court has subject matter jurisdiction.
To the extent plaintiff seeks to invoke the diversity jurisdiction of the Court under 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a), the complaint reveals such jurisdiction is lacking. A district court has
jurisdiction over a suit between citizens of different states when the amount in controversy
“exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Plaintiff has not alleged the requisite amount in controversy to establish diversity jurisdiction.
This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of citizenship over any state
law claims plaintiff may be alleging.
To the extent plaintiff invokes the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, the complaint
fails to state a claim for relief. District courts have original federal question jurisdiction over
cases “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
In order to invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331,
plaintiff must allege facts showing the cause of action involves an issue of federal law. See
Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987). The undersigned is unable to discern
from the facts alleged in the complaint any federal statutory or constitutional provision that
applies to give rise to an actionable claim for relief.
In any event, plaintiff’s pro se complaint is rambling, difficult to decipher, and virtually
incomprehensible. Plaintiff’s complaint provides no factual content or context from which the
Court may reasonably infer that the named defendant violated plaintiff’s rights. Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678. Plaintiff’s allegations do not “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).
4
Accordingly, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and should be
dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. The complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B).
2. The Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 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. Plaintiff remains free to
apply to proceed in forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals. See Callihan v. Schneider, 178
F.3d 800, 803 (6th Cir. 1999), overruling in part Floyd v. United States Postal Serv., 105 F.3d
274, 277 (6th Cir. 1997).
Date: 8/5/2024 Keun XK Xethov
Karen L. Litkovitz
United States Magistrate Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
JOHN HOLSEN MILLER, Case No. 1:24-cv-401
Plaintiff,
Barrett, J.
vs. Litkovitz, M.J.
GEORGE HUDSON,
Defendant.
NOTICE
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).
6