Dancy v. Cuyahoga County Board of Elections

Filing 3

Memorandum of Opinion and Order Plaintiff's 2 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted and this action is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 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. Signed by Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 10/10/2017. (K,K)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

RICO DANCY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CUYAHOGA COUNTY
BOARD OF ELECTIONS,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:17 CV 2033
JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

Pro se Plaintiff Rico Dancy filed this action against the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections.
In the Complaint (Doc. # 1), Plaintiff states he asked for interpreter services and his rights were
denied. He does not specify the relief he seeks.
In addition, Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. That application is
granted.
While pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365
(1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the Court may dismiss an action
sua sponte if the Court clearly lacks jurisdiction over the matters presented in the Complaint. Apple
v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999)(citing Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37
(1974)). Generally speaking, the Constitution and Congress have given federal courts authority to

hear a case only when diversity of citizenship exists between the parties, or when the case raises a
federal question. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). The first type of federal
jurisdiction, diversity of citizenship, is applicable to cases of sufficient value between “citizens of
different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). To establish diversity of citizenship, the Plaintiff must
establish that he is a citizen of one state and all of the Defendants are citizens of other states. The
citizenship of a natural person equates to his domicile. Von Dunser v. Aronoff, 915 F.2d 1071, 1072
(6th Cir.1990). The second type of federal jurisdiction relies on the presence of a federal question.
This type of jurisdiction arises where a “well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law
creates the cause of action or that the Plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a
substantial question of federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust,
463 U.S. 1, 27–28 (1983).
Plaintiff has not established a basis for federal court jurisdiction. He contends this Court has
diversity jurisdiction. He is an Ohio Citizen. Cuyahoga County is also part of Ohio. There is no
suggestion of diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff also fails to identify a federal question and none is apparent
on the face of the Complaint. Plaintiff has the burden of establishing this Court’s jurisdiction.
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377(1994) (internal citation omitted).
He has not satisfied that burden.

-2-

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted and this action
is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

10/10/2017
DAN AARON POLSTER
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-