Watts v. Continental Heritage Insurance Company et al

Filing 3

Memorandum Opinion and Order. Action is dismissed under section 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. Judge Christopher A. Boyko on 3/16/2018. (H,CM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

RALPH WATTS, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAMSBURG NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:17 CV 2473
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

On November 27, 2017, Plaintiff pro se Ralph Watts, Jr., a Cleveland, Ohio resident, filed
this in forma pauperis action against Williamsburg National Insurance Company, of Mayfield
Heights, Ohio, and 16 other Defendants.1 The 84-page Complaint does not contain specific factual
allegations, but seeks relief based on the following legal theories: Fraud, Conspiracy, Negligence,
Misappropriation of Funds, and Obstruction of Justice. For the reasons stated below, this action is
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365

1

The other Defendants are: Universal Fire & Casualty Insurance Company,
American Surety Company, Continental Heritage Insurance Company,
International Fidelity Insurance, U.S. Specialty Insurance Company, Bankers
Insurance Company, Seneca Insurance Company, Roche Surety and Casualty
Company, Inc., Allegheny Casualty Company, American Contractors Indemnity
Company, Lexington National Insurance Corporation, Universal Fire & Casualty
Insurance Company, Accredited Surety and Casualty Company, Inc., Sun Surety
Insurance Company, Timothy J. Kucharski, and Surety Corporation of America.

(1982) (per curiam), 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.2 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470 (6th Cir. 2010).
A cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it lacks
“plausibility in the complaint.” Bell At. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 564 (2007). A pleading
must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009). The factual allegations in the pleading must be
sufficient to raise the right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the
allegations in the complaint are true. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. The plaintiff is not required to
include detailed factual allegations, but must provide more than “an unadorned,
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (2009). A pleading that
offers legal conclusions or a simple recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not meet this
pleading standard. Id.
Plaintiff’s Complaint contains only very generalized fact allegations and bald legal
conclusions. Therefore, even construing his pleading liberally, he simply does not set forth a valid
federal claim. See, e.g., Lillard v. Shelby County Bd. of Educ,, 76 F.3d 716 (6th Cir. 1996)(court
not required to accept summary allegations or unwarranted legal conclusions in determining whether
complaint states a claim for relief). Further, to the extent he may be seeking to assert common law
claims, it is clear on the face of the Complaint that there is not complete diversity of citizenship of
the parties. The Court therefore lacks jurisdiction over any such claims. See Caudill v. North
America Media Corp, 200 F.3d 914, 916 (6th Cir. 2000).
Accordingly, this action is dismissed under section 1915(e). The Court certifies, pursuant

2

An in forma pauperis claim may be dismissed sua sponte, without prior notice to the
plaintiff and without service of process on the defendant, if the court explicitly states that
it is invoking section 1915(e) [formerly 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)] and is dismissing the claim
for one of the reasons set forth in the statute. Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp. v. Smith,
507 F.3d 910, 915 (6th Cir. 2007); Gibson v. R.G. Smith Co., 915 F.2d 260, 261 (6th Cir.
1990); Harris v. Johnson, 784 F.2d 222, 224 (6th Cir. 1986).
-2-

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
DATED: March 16, 2018

-3-