# Charles Ballard v. Zach Brown, et al.

> District Court, S.D. Ohio · August 19, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11423164

## Case

- **Full name:** Charles Ballard v. Zach Brown, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** August 19, 2026
- **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/11423164

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

Charles Ballard,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:26-cv-085
Judge Thomas M. Rose

Zach Brown, et al.,

Defendants.

ENTRY AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. 20), DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LIMITED JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY
(DOC. 30), AND TERMINATING CASE

This matter is currently before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 20.)
Therein, Defendants point out that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Pro Se
Plaintiff’s complaint. (Doc. 5.)
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and “possess only that power authorized
by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994).
Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), a case will be dismissed if the court lacks jurisdiction over the dispute.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not waivable and is fatal to a federal
action. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). Plaintiff asserts that this Court has
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). (Doc. 5, PageID 33.)
Federal courts may exercise jurisdiction under § 1332 only where the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000 and complete diversity exists between all plaintiffs and all
defendants. Complete diversity requires that no plaintiff share state citizenship with any defendant.
Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996); Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437
U.S. 365, 373-74 (1978). Citizenship for diversity purposes is determined by domicile, not

residence. NewmanGreen, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 828 (1989). Domicile requires
physical presence in a state combined with intent to remain, and it continues until a new domicile
is established. Miss. Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 48 (1989).
Plaintiff seems to assert that Defendants are diverse by virtue of being members of an
Indian tribe. (Doc. 5, PageID 33.) However, tribal members are treated as citizens of the state
where they reside for the purpose of establishing diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Gilmore v. Salazar, 748 F. Supp. 2d 1299, 1314 (N.D. Okla. 2010) (citing Richardson v. Malone,
762 F. Supp. 1463, 1466 (N.D.Okla.1991).
Sworn declarations submitted here establish that Defendants Zach Brown, Teresa

Brumfield, and Dawn Mubaslat are each domiciled in Ohio. (Doc. 20-2, PageID 182; Doc. 20-3,
PageID 185; Doc. 20-5, PageID 192.) Accordingly, each is a citizen of Ohio for purposes of §
1332. Because Plaintiff is also a citizen of Ohio, (Doc. 5, PageID 32) complete diversity is lacking,
and this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff requests permission to amend his complaint so as to state a federal claim under
Title VII. (Doc. 24, PageID 202.) However, under Title VII, “The term ‘employer’ means a person
engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees …, but such term
does not include…an Indian tribe.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b)(1). Because no defendant could be

2
classified as an employer under Title VII, Plaintiff’s proposed amendment would be futile. A court
may deny a motion for leave to amend when the proposed amendment would be futile. United
States ex rel. Harper v. Muskingum Watershed Conserv. Dist., 842 F.3d 430, 439-40 (6th Cir.
2016).
Finally, Plaintiff requests discovery to learn if Defendants’ employer, non-party Diné

Development Corporation, might have expressly waived sovereign immunity in a contract
underlying Plaintiff’s work. (Doc. 30, PageID 235.) A district court does not abuse its discretion
in denying jurisdictional discovery when a plaintiffs can only “speculate” that documents “might”
contain information relevant to jurisdiction. C.H. By & Through Shields v. United States, 818 F.
App'x 481, 484 (6th Cir. 2020) (citing A.O. Smith Corp. v. United States, 774 F.3d 359. 369–70
(6th Cir. 2014). Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery (Doc. 30) will, thus, be denied.
Because the named parties are not diverse, GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
(Doc. 20.) Because Plaintiff’s proposed amendment would be futile, leave to amend is DENIED.
Because it requests a purely speculative basis for suing a non-party, Plaintiff’s Motion for

Discovery, Doc. 30, is DENIED. All claims having been dismissed, the Clerk is ORDERED to
TERMINATE the instant case on the docket of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Western District at Dayton.
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Wednesday, August 19, 2026.

s/Thomas M. Rose
________________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11423164. Public record. Not legal advice.