Williams v. Excel Development Co., Inc.

Filing 4

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT 1) The complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice as to any federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 2) The complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice to any state law claims to be filed i n state court. 3) The Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) that for the foregoing reasons an appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in good faith and therefore deny Ms. Williams leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Ms. Williams remains free to apply to proceed in forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 11/26/2024. (kev)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
MS. JANELLE (MARY) WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
EXCEL DEVELOPMENT CO., INC.,
Defendant.

Case No. 1:24-cv-625
Cole, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Janelle (Mary) Williams, a resident of Cincinnati, Ohio, has filed a pro se civil
complaint against Excel Development Co., Inc., a resident of Cincinnati, Ohio. (Doc. 1-1).
By separate Order, plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915.
This matter is now before the Court for a sua sponte review of the complaint to determine
whether the complaint or any portion of it should be dismissed because it is frivolous, malicious,
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Screening of Complaint
A.

Legal Standard

In enacting the original in forma pauperis statute, Congress recognized that a “litigant
whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an
economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.” Denton
v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989)).
To prevent such abusive litigation, Congress has authorized federal courts to dismiss an in
forma pauperis complaint if they are satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious. Id.; see
also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A complaint may be dismissed as frivolous when the

plaintiff cannot make any claim with a rational or arguable basis in fact or law. Neitzke, 490
U.S. at 328-29; see also Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196, 1198 (6th Cir. 1990). An action
has no arguable legal basis when the defendant is immune from suit or when plaintiff claims a
violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. An action
has no arguable factual basis when the allegations are delusional or rise to the level of the
irrational or “wholly incredible.” Denton, 504 U.S. at 32; Lawler, 898 F.2d at 1199. The
Court need not accept as true factual allegations that are “fantastic or delusional” in reviewing
a complaint for frivolousness. Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 471 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328).
Congress also has authorized the sua sponte dismissal of complaints that fail to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii). A complaint filed
by a pro se plaintiff must be “liberally construed” and “held to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per
curiam) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). By the same token, however,
the complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also Hill, 630 F.3d at 470-71
(“dismissal standard articulated in Iqbal and Twombly governs dismissals for failure to state a
claim” under §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)).
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The Court must accept all well2

pleaded factual allegations as true, but need not “accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a
factual allegation.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286
(1986)). Although a complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” it must provide
“more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). A pleading that offers “labels and conclusions” or
“a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at
555. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders “naked assertion[s]” devoid of “further factual
enhancement.” Id. at 557. The complaint must “give the defendant fair notice of what the . .
. claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93 (citations omitted).
B.

Plaintiff’s Complaint

Ms. Williams’ complaint alleges that on May 26, 2024, she found her apartment building
storage unit had been broken into. She states items were scattered on the floor, but a Mr.
William Simms told her nothing was stolen. Ms. Williams states that “the property owners are
required by law to keep their property safe.” (Doc. 1-1 at PAGEID 7). Ms. Williams alleges
she is bringing a “premises liability claim” and a “personal liability claim” against Excel
Development Co., Inc. She seeks “damages” in an unspecified amount for “any harm that [she]
suffered.” (Id. at PAGEID 8).
C.

Resolution

Liberally construed, Ms. Williams’ complaint appears to allege negligence claims against
Excel Development Co., Inc. under Ohio law. This Court, however, does not have diversity
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) over Ms. Williams’ complaint. A district court has
jurisdiction over a suit between citizens of different states when the amount in controversy
3

“exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
The complaint alleges that Ms. Williams and Excel Development Co., Inc. are both Ohio
citizens. (Doc. 1-1 at PAGEID 5-6). Therefore, there is no complete diversity of citizenship in
this matter. In addition, the complaint does not allege the jurisdictional amount in controversy.
This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of citizenship over any state
law claims Ms. Williams may be alleging.
To the extent Ms. Williams invokes the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, the
complaint fails to state a claim for relief. District courts have original federal question
jurisdiction over cases “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”
28 U.S.C. § 1331. In order to invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1331, Ms. Williams must allege facts showing the cause of action involves an issue of
federal law. See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987). The undersigned is
unable to discern from the facts alleged in the complaint any federal statutory or constitutional
provision that applies to give rise to an actionable claim for relief.
Accordingly, the complaint fails to state a claim with an arguable basis in law over which
this federal Court has subject matter jurisdiction and should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B).
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. The complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice as to any federal claims pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
2. The complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice to any state law claims to be filed
in state court.
4

3. The Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) that for the foregoing reasons an
appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in good
faith and therefore deny Ms. Williams leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Ms. Williams
remains free to apply to proceed in forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals. See Callihan v.
Schneider, 178 F.3d 800, 803 (6th Cir. 1999), overruling in part Floyd v. United
States Postal Serv., 105 F.3d 274, 277 (6th Cir. 1997).

Date: 11/26/2024

Karen L. Litkovitz
United States Magistrate Judge

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
MS. JANELLE (MARY) WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:24-cv-625
Cole, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.

vs.
EXCEL DEVELOPMENT CO., INC.,
Defendant.

NOTICE
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy of
the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations.

This period may be extended further by the Court on

timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report
objected to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If
the Report and Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring on the
record at an oral hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the
record, or such portions of it as all parties may agree upon, or the Magistrate Judge deems
sufficient, unless the assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another
party’s objections WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make
objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

6