The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
MARLISHA GARNER,
Plaintiff, Case No. 2:26-cv-421
v. Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson
SOUTH 20TH PROPERTY LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. (Doc. 9). The Court previously
granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, screened her Complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2), and recommended dismissal of her case. (Doc. 8). A week later, Plaintiff filed a
document titled “objection reconsideration” and her Amended Complaint. (Docs. 9, 10).
Considering the liberal policy in favor of granting amendments under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15, the Court RETRACTS the May 21 Report and Recommendation (Doc. 8) and
considers the Amended Complaint (Doc. 9) as the operative Complaint. Inge v. Rock Fin. Corp.,
388 F.3d 930, 936 (6th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff, however, is cautioned that she will not be given
unlimited opportunities to amend her complaint. See Kanu v. Siemens PLM, No. 1:18-CV-38,
2019 WL 1090398, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 8, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, No.
1:18-CV-38, 2019 WL 4110434 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 29, 2019) (“[J]ustice simply does not require this
Court to permit a pro se plaintiff unlimited opportunities to amend [her] complaint, in hopes of
eventually stating some claim.”).
Now, after conducting the required screen of the Amended Complaint, the Undersigned
RECOMMENDS that the Court DISMISS Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. (Doc. 9).
I. STANDARD
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must dismiss the Amended
Complaint, or any portion of it, that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Complaints by pro se litigants are to be construed liberally and held to less
stringent standards than those prepared by attorneys. Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 712 (6th
Cir. 2004). But this leniency is not boundless, and “it is not within the purview of the district court
to conjure up claims never presented.” Frengler v. Gen. Motors, 482 F. App’x 975, 977 (6th Cir.
2012). At bottom, “basic pleading essentials” are still required, regardless of whether an individual
proceeds pro se. Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989).
These essentials are not onerous or overly burdensome. A complaint must contain “a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” see Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a)(2), and provide the defendant with “fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon
which it rests,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal quotation omitted).
In reviewing Plaintiff’s Complaint at this stage, the Court must construe it in her favor, accept all
well-pleaded factual allegations as true, and evaluate whether it contains “enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. “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.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Although this standard does not require “detailed factual
allegations, . . . [a] pleading that offers labels and conclusions” is insufficient. Id. at 678 (internal
quotation and quotation marks removed). In the end, the Court must dismiss the Complaint “if it
tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.” Id. (internal quotation and
quotation marks omitted).
Courts also “understand § 1915(e)(2) to include screening for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.” Howard v. Good Samaritan Hospital, No. 1:21-cv-160, 2022 WL 92462, at *2 (S.D.
Ohio Jan. 10, 2022). Indeed, courts are obligated to consider whether they have subject matter
jurisdiction and may raise jurisdictional issues sua sponte. Klepsky v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.,
489 F.3d 264, 268 (6th Cir. 2007). If a court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it must
dismiss the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
II. DISCUSSION
The Undersigned previously recommended dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint because
nothing in it allowed the Undersigned to infer that she raised a claim under the U.S. Constitution
or a federal law, and because it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (Doc. 8
at 3). Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not address these issues.
Plaintiff did not amend the body of her Complaint beyond fixing typographical errors.
(Doc. 9 at 3–4). Instead, she only attached additional exhibits, including copies of Franklin County
Municipal Court Orders and Entries, a rental agreement, a document titled “Housing Choice
Voucher Program” with handwritten notes, and what appears to be a screenshot from
“entportal.com” of a ledger, also with handwritten notes. (See generally, Doc. 9-1).
The additional exhibits still do not allow the Undersigned to infer that she raises a claim
under the U.S. Constitution or a federal law. As in her original Complaint, Plaintiff does not cite
any federal law, nor does she allege she meets the requirements for diversity jurisdiction. (Id.;
Doc. 7-1). Accordingly, the Undersigned cannot see how the Court could exercise jurisdiction
over this case. Even more, Plaintiff’s exhibits do not shed light on the factual and legal grounds
underlying her claims. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (requiring a complaint “give the defendant
fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests” (citation modified)); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (saying a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief”). In simpler terms, Plaintiff still fails to state, with enough detail, the
facts in support of those claims (what happened), the specific actions of each Defendant (the
persons who caused harm or injury and what they did or failed to do), and the relief requested
(what Plaintiff wants the Court to do).
For all these reasons, Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, after conducting an initial screen of the Amended Complaint
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Undersigned RECOMMENDS that it be DISMISSED.
Date: June 3, 2026 /s/Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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 finding or recommendations to which objection is made, together with supporting
authority for the objection(s). A District Judge of this Court shall make a de novo determination
of those portions of the Report or specific proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made. Upon proper objection, a District 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 forfeiture of the right to have the district judge review the Report
and Recommendation de novo and in a forfeiture of the right to appeal the decision of the District
Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d 520, 530–31 (6th
Cir. 2019); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947
(6th Cir. 1981).