Washington, Jr. v. Persons et al

Filing 9

Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing this matter. An appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge John R. Adams on 5/26/16. (K,C)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

ARTHUR WASHINGTON, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
MATT PERSON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:16 CV 1054
JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

Pro se Plaintiff Arthur Washington, Jr. filed this action in the Cuyahoga County Court of
Common Pleas on April 1, 2016 against Veterans Administration (“VA”) employees Matt
Person, Charles Moore, Steve Strobeck, Cindy Planta, and Edna Lima, and his former spouse
Betty Hardiman. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges Hardiman continued to receive benefits after
he and Hardiman divorced. He seeks monetary damages. The United States government
removed the case to this federal court on May 2, 2016.

I.

Background
Plaintiff’s Complaint is very brief and disjointed. He indicates he was married to

Hardiman. Plaintiff states that in 2005, he called the police when Hardiman appeared at the VA
Regional Office. He does not explain why Hardiman went to the VA offices, or why he
telephoned police. He indicates he asked Lima, to stop the checks going to Hardiman but she did
not answer him. Plaintiff states he and Hardiman divorced in December 2012, and he moved to
Cleveland, Ohio in November 2013. He has since remarried. He states, “Charles Moore, Steve

Strobeck, Matt Person, did say I sign and don’t know the Declaration of Status of Dependants
and a Power of Attorney, Matt Person said I don’t even I signed.” (Doc. No. 1-1 at 4). Plaintiff
contends Defendants should repay him for the monies paid to Hardiman from 2005 to 2015.

II.

Standard of Review
The Court is required to construe Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint liberally and to hold it to a

less stringent standard than one drafted by an attorney. Spotts v. United States, 429 F.3d 248,
250 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)). Pursuant to Apple v.
Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999) (per curiam), district courts are permitted to conduct a
limited screening procedure and to dismiss, sua sponte, a fee-paid Complaint filed by a
non-prisoner if it appears that the allegations are “totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial,
frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion.” Apple, 183 F.3d at 479 (citing
Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974)). Dismissal on a sua sponte basis is also
authorized where the asserted claims lack an arguable basis in law, or if the district court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted. Id. at 480; see also Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 327 (1989); Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996).

III.

Analysis
Plaintiff’s failure to identify a cause of action deprives this Court of subject matter

jurisdiction over this case. Plaintiff objects to the VA’s payment of benefits to Hardiman. The
United States, as a sovereign, cannot be sued without its prior consent, and the terms of its
consent define the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. McGinness v. U.S., 90 F.3d 143, 145 (6th
Cir. 1996). A waiver of sovereign immunity must be strictly construed, unequivocally expressed,
and cannot be implied. U.S. v. King, 395 U.S. 1,4 (1969); Soriano v. U.S., 352 U.S. 270, 276
-2-

(1957). His Complaint contains very few facts and no legal claims. In addition, no legal claims
are apparent on the face of the pleading. Absent an indication that Plaintiff is asserting a cause of
action for which the United States has consented to suit, the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this
case or to order the United States to pay damages to him.
To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to assert a cause of action against the individual
Defendants rather than the United States government, he failed to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted. To meet the minimum pleading requirements of Federal Civil Procedure Rule 8,
the Complaint must give fair notice to the Defendants of what the Plaintiff’s legal claims are and
the factual grounds upon which they rest. Bassett v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 528 F.3d
426, 437 (6th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff’s Complaint does not meet this basic standard. There are no
allegations in the Complaint that plausibly suggest a cause of action Plaintiff may be bringing
against the individual Defendants.

IV.

Conclusion
Accordingly, this action is dismissed. 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.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ John R. Adams

Date: May 26, 2016

JOHN R. ADAMS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides:
An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies that it is
not taken in good faith.
-3-