Mott et al v. Mittel Steel et al
Opinion and Order. This action is dismissed sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir.1999). 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 4/10/2017. (H,CM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
NANCY MOTT and
MITTEL STEEL, et al.,
CASE NO. 4:17 CV 186
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
OPINION AND ORDER
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, J.:
Pro se Plaintiffs Nancy Mott and Terrence Mott filed this action against Mittel Steel,
M.D. Anderson Cancer Centers and Associates, the United States State Department, Atlas
Energy Group, Atlas Resources, now Targa Resources Corp., Dearing Compressor Systems and
Exterran, now Archrock Compressor Systems. The body of the Complaint, in its entirety, states:
That the Defendants named above engaged with groups, domestic
and international to: defame, deplete monies, pollute and distruct
[sic] gas reservoirs, distruct [sic] aquifers of the United States of
That the Defendants engaged in a pattern of money-laundering for
foreign and domestic failing ventures.
That the Defendants named above violated RICO statutes.
They ask that this Court remove Mittel Steel’s operating rights and transfer their business and
facilities to a domestic corporation operated by domestic individuals.
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
Standard of Review
The Court is required to construe Plaintiffs’ pro se Complaint liberally and to hold it to a
less stringent standard than one drafted by an attorney. Spotts v. United States, 429 F.3d 248,
250 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)). Pursuant to Apple v.
Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999) (per curiam), District Courts are permitted to conduct
a limited screening procedure and to dismiss, sua sponte, a fee-paid Complaint filed by a
non-prisoner if it appears that the allegations are “totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial,
frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion.” Apple, 183 F.3d at 479 (citing
Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974)). Where the plaintiff's claims are without the
“legal plausibility necessary to invoke federal subject matter jurisdiction,” the Court may
dismiss the Complaint upon its own Motion. Id. at 480.
In every federal case, the party bringing the suit has the burden to establish standing to
prosecute the action. “In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to
have the Court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.” Warth v. Seldin, 422
U.S. 490, 498 (1975). Standing is a “bedrock requirement” of federal jurisdiction. Valley Forge
Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982).
If the Plaintiffs lack standing to bring the action, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and
must dismiss the case. Langfan v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 529 F. App’x 460, 463 (6th
Cir. 2013). Therefore, the Court is obligated to address a party’s lack of standing even if the
parties fail to raise the issue on their own. See Bench Billboard Co. v. City of Cincinnati, 675
F.3d 974, 983 (6th Cir. 2012).
Article III standing requires three things of Plaintiffs: (1) that they suffered an
injury-in-fact that is “concrete and particularized,” and “actual or imminent, not ‘conjectural or
hypothetical;’” (2) that they demonstrate a fair amount of traceability between that injury they
allege they suffered and the “challenged action of the Defendant;” and (3) there is a likelihood,
as opposed to mere speculation, that “the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.”
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000). See Lujan
v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992); Langfan v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.,
529 F. App’x 460, 462 (6th Cir. 2013).
Here, Plaintiffs have not established standing to bring this action. First, they do not
allege that they suffered an injury-in-fact. They allege the Defendants engaged with foreign and
domestic groups to defame unidentified parties, deplete monies from unspecified sources,
pollute and destruct gas reservoirs and aquifers in the United States of America. They also
contend the Defendants engaged in a pattern of money-laundering for foreign and domestic
failing ventures. Assuming the truth of the allegations and construing them in the light most
favorable to Plaintiffs, they do not plead facts to suggest that they were personally injured by any
of these alleged actions. In addition, there is no connection between any of these allegations and
any specific Defendant to say what that Defendant did that Plaintiffs believe met the description
above. Third, Plaintiffs do not demonstrate that there is a likelihood that the relief they seek removal of Mittel Steel’s operating rights and transfer of their business and facilities to a
domestic corporation operated by domestic individuals - would redress any potential injury from
the actions described in the Complaint. Plaintiffs have not met their burden to demonstrate
standing to bring this action.
As Plaintiffs lack standing, the Court cannot reach the merits of their claims. This
action is dismissed sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. See Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir.1999). 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.
s/ Christopher A. Boyko
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: April 10, 2017
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.
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?