Gohlstin v. Key Bank
Filing
6
Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 8/19/15 granting plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and setting forth the grounds for dismissal of the complaint. (Related Docs. 1 , 2 ) (M,G)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
------------------------------------------------------:
BENJAMIN F. GOHLSTIN, JR.,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
vs.
:
:
KEY BANK,
:
:
Defendant.
:
:
-------------------------------------------------------
CASE NO. 1:15-CV-0729
OPINION & ORDER
[Resolving Doc. No. 1]
JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Pro se Plaintiff Benjamin F. Gohlstin, Jr. filed this action against Key Bank. In the
Complaint, Plaintiff alleges the Defendant breached a mediation agreement in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act. He does not state the relief he seeks from this Court.
Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2). That Motion is
granted.
I. Background
Plaintiff alleges Key Bank breached a 2007 mediation agreement with the Cuyahoga
County Alcohol, Drug Addiction, and Mental Health Services (“ADAMS”) Board. He states the
agreement required him to receive training and education to have opportunities for employment.
He claims he obtained a degree in business administration from Cleveland State University, and
has upheld his part of the agreement. Finally, he claims Defendants’ representatives assaulted
him. He asserts he filed his case under the Americans with Disabilities Act because he disclosed
his mental health disability at the mediation.
II. Legal Standard
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, the district court is required to dismiss
an in forma pauperis action under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e) if it fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, or if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. A claim lacks an arguable
basis in law or fact when it is based on a meritless legal theory or when the factual allegations
are clearly baseless.1 A cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted
when it does not contain sufficient facts to demonstrate the Plaintiff has a plausible claim for
relief.2 In reviewing a Complaint, the Court must construe the pleading in the light most
favorable to the Plaintiff.
III. Analysis
Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. He
indicates he is entitled to relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“the ADA”), which
prohibits an employer from discriminating against a qualified individual in the hiring process on
the basis of a disability.3 Plaintiff alleges he has a mental disability but he does not allege he
applied to Key Bank for a job, that he was qualified for that job, that Key Bank personnel were
aware of his disability and that he was refused employment on the basis of his disability.4
Plaintiff does not allege enough facts to state a claim for relief under the ADA.
1
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)
2
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 564 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 67778 (2009).
3
42 U.S.C. § 12102
4
See Nance v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 527 F.3d 539, 553 (6th Cir .2008) (citing
Monette v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 90 F.3d 1173, 1186 (6th Cir. 1996)).
-2-
In addition, Plaintiff asserts claims for breached a mediation agreement and assault.
These are state law claims. For the Court to have jurisdiction over these state law claims,
Plaintiff must have related federal law claims before the Court.5 Because Plaintiff’s ADA claim
was dismissed, the Court declines jurisdiction over his state law claims.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is granted
and this action is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The Court certifies, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/
James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: August 19, 2015
5
United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 724 (1966).
6
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides that a Plaintiff may not proceed in forma pauperis on
appeal if the trial court certifies an appeal cannot be taken in good faith.
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?