X v. 5510 Dunham Rd LLC et al.
Filing
3
Memorandum Opinion and Order. The Court grants Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2 ) and dismisses this action pursuant to 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 good faith. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 10/25/2024. (R,Sh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
CHIEF X ISRAEL, on behalf of,
RODNEY LOMAX ESTATE TRUST
TRIBE, Pro Se,
Plaintiff
v.
5510 DUNHAM RD LLC, et al.,
Defendants
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 1:24 CV 1263
JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
Pro Se Plaintiff Chief X Israel, on behalf of Rodney Lomax Estate Trust, filed this action
against 5510 Dunham Rd LLC, S & T Bank, U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), U.S.
Department of the Treasury, and the U.S. Attorney General. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff filed an
application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2). The application is granted.
For the following reasons, the Court dismisses this action.
II. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff appears to claim that he is a tribal chief, and he files this Complaint on behalf of the
“Rodney Lomax Estate Trust Tribe.” The complaint consists largely of incomprehensible,
disconnected statements concerning the “Lomax Indian Tribe” and the “Cashbox Trust Tribe” and
the tribes’ purported interest in property located at 5510 Dunham Road. (See ECF No. 1, PageID ##
6-9).
The Complaint contains several pages of a document titled, “Trepass Notice Land Reclaim
Interest and Acquisition” and numerous exhibits, including the following: (1) four pages of legal
citations to Title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations, pertaining to the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Department of the Interior, subsection titled “Trespass”; (2) an “Order for Summary Judgments”
containing a handwritten reference to Garfield Heights Municipal Court Case No. 2316720; (3) two
pages copied from Rule 7067-1 of Local Bankruptcy Rules of the Northern District of Ohio
(“Registry Fund”); (4) Affidavit of Indian Sovereignty and Self Government; (5) Notice to the Court
Regarding Reserved Rights Doctrine; (6) Affidavit of Indian Heirship and Beneficiary Designation,
in which Plaintiff states that he is a lawful Indian tribal heir; (7) a copy of a “cash check moneys
order” for $2,000,000, drafted by “Chief”; and (8) a copy of a judgment entry from the Garfield
Heights Municipal Court in 5510 Dunham Rd LLC v. Israel Bey, Case No. CVG 2316720, indicating
the matter is “deemed closed and dismissed.” (Id.; ECF Nos.1-1 through 1-3). Plaintiff’s civil cover
sheet indicates “this cause stems from an unlawful eviction.” (ECF No. 1-7).
Plaintiff states that he seeks “any equitable remedy available for treaty law violations, plus
treble damages.” (ECF No. 1-3, PageID # 33).
III. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365, 102 S. Ct.
700, 70 L. Ed. 2d 551 (1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S. Ct. 594, 30
L. Ed. 2d 652 (1972). The district court, however, 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. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 104 L. Ed.
-2-
2d 338 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990); Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville,
99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact when it is premised
on an indisputably meritless legal theory or when the factual contentions are clearly baseless.
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. A cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted
when it lacks “plausibility in the complaint.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 564, 127 S.
Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), 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, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (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 he or she must provide more than “an unadorned, the
defendant unlawfully harmed me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 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. The Court is “not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual
allegation.” Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S. Ct. 2932, 92 L. Ed. 2d 209 (1986).
In reviewing a complaint, the Court must construe the pleading in the light most favorable
to the plaintiff. Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 151 F.3d 559, 561 (6th Cir. 1998).
B. Analysis
The Court recognizes that pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers. El Bey v. Roop, 530 F.3d 407, 413 (6th Cir. 2008). However, the
“lenient treatment generally accorded to pro se litigants has limits.” Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d
-3-
413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996). Liberal construction for pro se litigants does not “abrogate basic pleading
requirements.” Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989). The Court is not required to
conjure unpleaded facts or construct claims against defendants on behalf of a pro se plaintiff. See
Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985) (District courts are not required
to conjure up questions never squarely presented to them or to construct full claims from sentence
fragments. To do so would “require . . . [the courts] to explore exhaustively all potential claims of
a pro se plaintiff. . . [and] would . . . transform the district court from its legitimate advisory role to
the improper role of an advocate seeking out the strongest arguments and most successful strategies
for a party.”) (citation omitted). Although specific facts are not required, to meet the basic minimum
notice pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff’s complaint
must give the defendants fair notice of what the plaintiff’s legal claims are and the factual grounds
on which they rest. See Bassett v. Nat’l Collegiate Ath. Ass’n, 528 F.3d 426, 437 (6th Cir. 2008); see
also Scheid v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434, 437 (6th Cir. 1988) (all complaints
must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all material elements of some viable
legal theory to satisfy federal notice pleading requirements) (citations omitted).
Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to meet even the most liberal reading of the Twombly and
Iqbal standard as his pleading fails to set forth “a short and plain statement of [any] claim showing
that [Plaintiff] is entitled to relief[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Plaintiff’s Complaint contains very few
facts. Rather, it contains disjointed statements concerning the “Lomax Indian Tribe,” “Cashbox Trust
Tribe,” and Indian sovereignty, as well as miscellaneous citations to legal authority. Further, it fails
to connect any alleged occurrence to a specific, cognizable injury, and Plaintiff fails coherently to
identify how each defendant has harmed him. Without any indication of a viable legal claim or
-4-
sufficient facts to determine the factual basis for his Complaint, Plaintiff fails to meet the minimum
pleading requirements of Rule 8 and his Complaint must be dismissed on this basis. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678.
To the extent the Court can construe Plaintiff’s Complaint as asserting a claim of unlawful
eviction, Plaintiff’s claim fails. Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal district courts lack
jurisdiction to review cases litigated and decided in state courts. District of Columbia Court of
Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476, 103 S. Ct. 1303, 75 L. Ed. 2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity
Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S. Ct. 149, 68 L. Ed. 2d 362, 68 L. Ed. 362 (1923); Patmon v. Mich.
Supreme Court, 224 F.3d 504, 506-07 (6th Cir. 2000). The Sixth Circuit has stated that, “[w]here
federal relief can only be predicated upon a conviction that the state court was wrong, it is difficult
to conceive the federal proceeding as, in substance, anything other than a prohibited appeal of a state
court judgment.” Catz v. Chalker, 142 F.3d 279, 295 (6th Cir. 1998) (amended on other grounds 243
F.3d 234 (6th Cir. 2001)) (quoting Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 25, 107 S. Ct. 1519, 95
L. Ed. 2d 1 (1987)). Federal appellate review of state court judgments can only occur in the United
States Supreme Court. See Feldman, 460 U.S. at 483; Rooker, 263 U.S. at 415-16.
Here, to the extent Plaintiff’s Complaint challenges the lawfulness of a state court eviction
judgment entered against him in the Garfield Heights Municipal Court, this challenge would require
the Court to review the same issues that were reviewed by the state court. The Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction to do so. For this reason, Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed pursuant to the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See, e.g., Flowers v. Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority, 90 Fed.
App’x. 893, 894, 2004 WL 237410, at *2 (6th Cir. 2004) (affirming dismissal of pro se complaint
challenging the lawfulness of a state court forcible entry and detainer judgment on the basis of the
-5-
Rooker-Feldman doctrine); Poindexter v. Full Line Real Estate Construction, LLC, No. 4:
23-cv-1049, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161806, 2023 WL 5957103, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 13, 2023)
(dismissing complaint asserting claims challenging an eviction action brought in Youngstown
Municipal Court).
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 2) and dismisses this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e). Further, the court
certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be good
faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
October 25, 2024
-6-
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?