Dortch v. Peterson et al

Filing 3

Memorandum Opinion and Order. Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 2 is granted, and this action is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e). The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from thisdecision could not be taken in good faith. Judge John R. Adams on 4/26/18. (D,Ky) Modified on 4/27/2018 (D,Ky).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

KAREN DORTCH
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. PETERSON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 5:17 CV 2536
JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

Pro se Plaintiff Karen Dortch filed this action against Dr. Peterson, the Cleveland Clinic
and Akron General Hospital. The handwritten Complaint is difficult to decipher. She states she
went to the Cleveland Clinic Akron General Hospital for an MRI scan of her brain. She
mentions toxic fumes from natural gas, and indicates she was taken to the psychiatric floor. She
contends she was not free to leave. She states Dr. Peterson found nothing and let her go. She
does not specify the legal claims she intends to assert or the relief she seeks.
Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2). That
Application is granted.

I.

Standard of Review
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364,

365 (1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the 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. Neitzke v. Williams,

490 U.S. 319 (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 (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.
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 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).

II.

Analysis
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and, unlike state trial courts, they do not

have general jurisdiction to review all questions of law. See Ohio ex rel. Skaggs v. Brunner, 549
F.3d 468, 474 (6th Cir. 2008). Instead, they have only the authority to decide cases that the
Constitution and Congress have empowered them to resolve. Id. Consequently, “[i]t is to be
presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the

-2-

contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,
511 U.S. 375, 377(1994) (internal citation omitted).
Generally speaking, the Constitution and Congress have given federal courts authority to
hear a case only when diversity of citizenship exists between the parties, or when the case raises
a federal question. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). The first type of
federal jurisdiction, diversity of citizenship, is applicable to cases of sufficient value between
“citizens of different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). To establish diversity of citizenship, the
Plaintiff must establish that he is a citizen of one state and all of the Defendants are citizens of
other states. The citizenship of a natural person equates to his domicile. Von Dunser v. Aronoff,
915 F.2d 1071, 1072 (6th Cir.1990). The second type of federal jurisdiction relies on the
presence of a federal question. This type of jurisdiction arises where a “well-pleaded Complaint
establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the Plaintiff's right to relief
necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd. v.
Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27–28 (1983).
Diversity of citizenship does not exist in this case. Plaintiff indicates she resides in Ohio.
She names two Ohio hospitals and an Ohio physician. A Plaintiff in Federal Court has the
burden of pleading sufficient facts to support the existence of the Court’s jurisdiction.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. In a diversity action, the Plaintiff must state the citizenship of all parties so that
the existence of complete diversity can be confirmed. Washington v. Sulzer Orthopedics, Inc.,
No. 03-3350, 2003 WL 22146143, at *1 (6th Cir. Sept. 16, 2003). Furthermore Plaintiff does not
specify her damages so she fails to establish the amount in controversy. Federal subject matter
jurisdiction cannot be based on diversity of citizenship.

-3-

If federal jurisdiction exists in this case, it must be based on a claimed violation of
federal law. Here, Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and pro se Plaintiffs enjoy the benefit of a
liberal construction of their pleadings and filings. Boswell v. Mayer, 169 F.3d 384, 387 (6th Cir.
1999). Indeed, this standard of liberal construction “requires active interpretation ... to construe a
pro se petition ‘to encompass any allegation stating federal relief.’” Haines, 404 U.S. at 520.
Even with that liberal construction, however, the Court is unable to identify a federal claim on
the face of the Complaint and Plaintiff does not reference a federal cause of action. Jurisdiction
cannot be based on the presence of a federal question.

IV.

Conclusion
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is

granted, and this action is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 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 taken in good faith.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.

April 26, 2018

/s/ John R. Adams
JOHN R. ADAMS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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.
-4-