Grimm v. Lampp

Filing 3

Memorandum Of Opinion and Order. There is no basis for subject matter jurisdiction in this Court. Lampp's alleged actions were not, by their very nature, taken under "color of state law" for purposes of a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Accordingly, this action is dismissed. Judge Christopher A. Boyko on 12/18/09. (M,M)

Grimm v. Lampp

Doc. 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ROBERT GRIMM, Plaintiff, v. BEVERLY LAMPP, aka BEVERLY GRIMM, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:09 CV 2745 JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER

On November 23, 2009, plaintiff pro se Robert Grim filed this action against his former spouse, Beverly Lampp. The

complaint states the parties were divorced in Connecticut, and that an order for lump sum alimony and attorney fees was issued by a Connecticut court in 2006. It is further alleged that the

Connecticut court ordered Lampp to transfer title of a house in Highland Heights, Ohio. At some point, Lampp filed an action in

the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court seeking interest on monies claimed she was owed by Grimm based on a 2003 Connecticut court order. Grimm claims Lampp and her attorney knew that the interest Plaintiff asserts this court has jurisdiction

claim lacked merit.

"over a violation of my Constitutional Rights, Article IV, § 1, and USC title 28 section 1738."

Dockets.Justia.com

There is no basis for subject matter jurisdiction in this court. Lampp's alleged actions were not, by their very nature,

taken under "color of state law" for purposes of a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Further, 28 U.S.C. § 1738 does not confer federal

jurisdiction over state court matters, and federal courts simply do not have jurisdiction over essentially domestic relations disputes. McLaughlin v. Cotner, 193 F.3d 410, 412 (6th Cir. 1999) Accordingly, this action is dismissed. IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Christopher A. Boyko CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE December 18, 2009

2