Bey v. United North Corporation

Filing 11

Memorandum Opinion and Order: This action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e). Defendants Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint (Doc. No. 10 ) is denied as moot. 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. Plaintiff Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2 ) is granted. Judge Jack Zouhary on 2/28/12. (C,D)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Zuhayra Rasheed Bey, ex rel.
Katrina Barnhill,

Case No. 3:11 CV 2604
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

Plaintiff,

JUDGE JACK ZOUHARY

-vsUnited North Corporation,
Defendant.

INTRODUCTION
Before this Court is pro se Plaintiff Zuhayra Rasheed Bey’s (aka Katrina Barnhill) Complaint
against United North Corporation (“United North”) (Doc. No. 1). For the following reasons
Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed. Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc.
2). That Motion is granted.
Plaintiff’s Complaint is very brief. She alleges United North violated her due process rights
when it started eviction proceedings against her in October 2011 (Doc. No. 1 at 1–2).1 She claims
“many companies [including United North] have pretended to own property that they did not own,
fraudulently collecting funds that they were not entitled to . . . .” (Doc. No. 1 at 2). Specifically,
Plaintiff contends she is the “indigenous aboriginal possessor” of the land and that United North
cannot prove its ownership. She requests this Court order United North to provide proof of
ownership of the property or, in the alternative, pay her $50,000 for emotional damages.

1

Toledo Municipal Court records show the eviction was filed against Plaintiff by United North for
nonpayment of rent. See United North Corp. v. Barnhill, No. CVG-11-17885 (Toledo Mun. Ct. filed Oct.
12, 2011). A judgment against Plaintiff was entered on November 8, 2011. Toledo Municipal Court records
can be viewed at: http://www.tmc-clerk.com/case/default.asp.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365
(1982) (per curiam), the district court 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. McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608–09 (6th Cir. 1997).
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 v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 327 (1989). 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 (2007).
A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (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. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 555. Plaintiff is not required
to include detailed factual allegations, but must provide more than “an unadorned,
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. 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. In reviewing the 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).

2

ANALYSIS
Plaintiff is barred from litigating any claim, issue or defense pertaining to the eviction. A
federal court must give a state court judgment the same preclusive effect it would have in the courts
of the rendering state. 28 U.S.C. § 1738; Dubuc v. Green Oak Township, 312 F.3d 736, 744 (6th
Cir. 2002). This Court must therefore look to Ohio law to determine the preclusive effect of the
previous state court judgment. Id.
In Ohio, the doctrine of res judicata includes two related concepts: claim preclusion and
issue preclusion. State ex rel. Davis v. Pub. Emp. Ret. Bd., 120 Ohio St.3d 386, 392 (2008). Claim
preclusion prevents a party from asserting a new claim already resolved in a previous action
involving the same parties. Fort Frye Teachers Assn., OEA/NEA v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 81
Ohio St.3d 392 (1998). It also applies where a claim or defense was not raised but could have been
litigated in the previous suit. Grava v. Parkman Twp, 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 382 (1995). Issue
preclusion serves to prevent relitigation of any fact or point determined by a court of competent
jurisdiction in a previous action between the same parties. Fort Frye, 81 Ohio St.3d at 395. Issue
preclusion applies even if the causes of action differ. Id.
Here, Ohio law on issue and claim preclusion bar Plaintiff’s due process claim. She contends
Defendant did not sufficiently prove ownership of the rental property and she should not have been
evicted. The Toledo Municipal Court already determined the eviction was proper and the doctrine
of issue preclusion bars litigation of that issue in this Court. Her claim that Defendant is not the true
owner of the property could have and should have been raised in the state court as part of the
eviction action. She cannot bring a separate action in this Court based on that defense. The Toledo
Municipal Court issued a judgment in the eviction action and this Court gives full faith and credit
to that decision.
3

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e). Defendant’s Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. No. 10) is denied as moot. 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/ Jack Zouhary
JACK ZOUHARY
U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE
February 28, 2012

4