Parker v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 23

Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 7/25/16. The Court, for the reasons set forth in this order, sua sponte strikes plaintiff's amended complaint. Plaintiff's original Social Security appeal remains. She may proceed with that claim alone. The two pending motions to dismiss and plaintiff's motions for extensions of time are now moot. (Related Docs. 11 , 19 , 21 , and 22 ) (D,MA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
-----------------------------------------------------DEBORAH PARKER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO. 5:16-CV-278

OPINION & ORDER
[Resolving Doc. 11, 19, 21, 22]

-----------------------------------------------------JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
On February 5, 2016, Plaintiff Deborah Parker filed in this Court to appeal the denial of
her Social Security and Disability benefits.1 Four months later, Plaintiff Parker amended her
complaint, adding a corporate plaintiff, Special Care Facilities, Inc., and five defendants: the
Ohio Department of Developmental Disabilities, the Northeast Ohio Network, the Stark County
Board of Developmental Disabilities, the Summit County Board of Developmental Disabilities,
and the Trumbull County Board of Developmental Disabilities.2
The Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiff owned and operated Special Care
Facilities, Inc. to care for individuals with mental illness.3 The Amended Complaint alleges that
each of these five defendants failed to pay Special Care Facilities, Inc. for services rendered
between 1998 and 2008.4
The Court sua sponte strikes the amended complaint. This Court lacks jurisdiction over
facially state-law claims unrelated to Plaintiff Parker’s Social Security appeal. 5

1

Doc. 1.
Doc. 12.
3
Id.
4
Id.
5
See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
2

Case No. 16-cv-278
Gwin, J.
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint presents numerous other concerns. First, these state
claims for money damages appear to be time barred.6 Second, Special Care Facilities, Inc. is a
corporation, and it must be represented by counsel in federal court.7 Plaintiff Parker cannot
represent the corporation. Third, Special Care Facilities, not Plaintiff Parker, is allegedly owed
money from the newly-added Defendants. If Special Care Facilities cannot remain a plaintiff
because it is not represented by counsel, the claims against the newly-added defendants must be
dismissed as well.
Finally, it appears that Plaintiff has previously pursued these exact claims and lost in
other lawsuits in this Court.8 Plaintiff cannot use her Social Security appeal to relitigate the
same claims.
The Court sua sponte strikes the amended complaint.9 Plaintiff’s original Social
Security appeal remains. She may proceed with that claim alone.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 25, 2016.

s/
James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6

Contract claims must be brought within six years. Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.07. The time period
is even shorter for written contracts. Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.06.
7
Ginger v. Cohn, 426 F.2d 1385, 1386 (6th Cir.1970).
8
Parker v. Stark County Board of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities and
Northeast Ohio Networks, 01-cv-1974 (N.D. Ohio); Parker v. Trumbull County Board for Developmental
Disabilities, 07-cv-2874 (N.D. Ohio); Parker v. Summit County Board of Mental Retardation &
Developmental Disabilities, 07-cv-3601 (N.D. Ohio); Parker v. Stark County Board of Mental
Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 07-cv-3602 (N.D. Ohio), Parker v. Ohio Department of
Developmental Disabilities, 07-cv-3652 (N.D. Ohio).
9
The two pending motions to dismiss and Plaintiff’s motions for extensions of time are now
moot. Doc. 11; Doc. 19; Doc. 21; Doc. 22.

-2-