The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
DIALLO SEWELL,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 2:24-cv-3273
JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura
LC PRESERVE CROSSING, LLC,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant LC Preserve Crossing, LLC’s First Motion
to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Mot., ECF No. 5) and Plaintiff Diallo Sewell’s Memo in
Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 7). For the reasons stated below,
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment is DENIED as moot (ECF No. 7).
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
To state a claim upon which relief may be granted, plaintiffs must satisfy the pleading
requirements set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires a pleading to
contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Accordingly, “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a 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, 677–78 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007)). “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.” Id. at 678 (clarifying the plausibility standard from Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
Furthermore, “[a]lthough for purposes of a motion to dismiss [a court] must take all the factual
allegations in the complaint as true, ‘[the court is] not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion
quotations omitted).
“[P]ro se litigants are to be afforded liberal construction of their pleadings and filings.”
Yagley v. Occupational Safety & Health Admin., U.S. Dep’t of Lab., 461 F. App’x 411, 414 (6th
Cir. 2012) (citing Boswell v. Mayer, 169 F.3d 384, 387 (6th Cir. 1999)). Even so, courts should
not be left to guess at the nature of the claims asserted. Frengler v. Gen. Motors, 482 F. App’x
975, 976–77 (6th Cir. 2012) (unpublished) (quoting Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir.
1989)).
II. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff’s pro se complaint does not meet Rule 8’s basic pleading requirements.
Defendant explains it cannot respond “with any reasonable certainty because it is unclear how or
why Defendant is being sued.” (ECF No. 5, PageID 33.) Defendant guesses that Plaintiff is
attempting to relitigate or appeal issues that he lost in the Franklin County Court of Common
Pleas and in the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth Appellate District. See Sewell v. LC Pres.
Crossing, LLC, Case No. 23-cv-928 (Franklin Cnty. Ct. Com. Pls. Jan. 31, 2024); Sewell v. LC
Pres. Crossing, LLC, No. 24-AP-152 (10th Dist. Ohio Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2024). If that is
Plaintiff’s attempt here, he could have appealed the Tenth District’s decision to the Supreme
Court of Ohio, but his remedy does not lie in this Court.
Defendant also postulates that Plaintiff is a sovereign citizen asserting that he should be
able to trademark his name. (Mot. PageID 34.) Generally, “sovereign citizens believe that the
United States Government, including the IRS, is a fraud and that they, the sovereign citizens,
retain an individual common law identity exempting them from the authority of those fraudulent
government institutions.” United States v. Gooch, 595 F. App’x 524, 527 n.1 (6th Cir. 2014)
(citations and quotations omitted). Federal courts have routinely found such theories to be
meritless. See DuBose v. Kasich, No. 2:11-CV-00071, 2013 WL 164506, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Jan.
15, 2013) (collecting cases).
Defendant asks the Court to “consider whether sanctions are appropriate for the
Plaintiff’s frivolous conduct” but does not elaborate to provide reasoning or support for that
request. (Mot. PageID 33.) The Court is aware of only one other lawsuit that Plaintiff filed in this
Court, over which the Undersigned presided. See In re: Diallo Sewell, Case No. 2:24-mc-003
(S.D. Ohio Oct. 4, 2024). Plaintiff’s case was dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction. Id., ECF No. 8. The Court declines to issue sanctions at this time, but warns
Plaintiff that future frivolous filings could result in an order of sanctions in the form of,
including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys’ fees, or declaring Plaintiff to be a vexatious
litigator.
III. CONCLUSION
Defendant’s First Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim is GRANTED. (ECF
No. 5.) Because Plaintiff’s case is dismissed on Defendant’s 12(b)(6) Motion, Plaintiff’s Memo
in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as moot. (ECF No. 7.) The Clerk is
DIRECTED to enter judgment, to terminate this case on the Court’s docket, and to mail a copy
of this Opinion and Order to Diallo Sewell at 3700 Preserve Crossing Blvd., Gahanna, Ohio
43230.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
3/19/2025 s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
DATE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE