Grace v. Hasrouni et al
Memorandum Opinion and Order. This action is dismissed. Further, 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. Judge Christopher A. Boyko on 10/20/2017. (R,D)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
MYRON A. GRACE,
ELIAS HASROUNI, et al.,
CASE NO. 1:17 CV 2166
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
On October 13, 2017, Plaintiff pro se Myron A. Grace, of Mentor, Ohio, filed this action
against Defendants Elias Hasrouni, City of Lorain Ohio Law Department, Lorain Palace Theatre
and Martin Leibas. The Complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and seeks injunctive and
Although 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 district court is
required to dismiss an 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. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990); Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville,
99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996).
Even construing the Complaint liberally, there is no suggestion of any possible basis for
this Court's jurisdiction. Plaintiff does not invoke a federal statute in support of his claim and
diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff and Defendants does not exist. This action is therefore
appropriately subject to summary dismissal. Lowe v. Huffstutler, No. 89-5996, 1990 WL 66822
(6th Cir. May 21, 1990).
Accordingly, this action is dismissed. Further, 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/Christopher A. Boyko
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?