Howard v. Hamilton County Job and Family Services et al
Filing
4
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 2 Amended Complaint filed by Charles M. Howard, Sr. IT IS RECOMMENDED this action be DISMISSED with PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim for relief. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) that an appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in good faith and therefore deny Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Objections to R&R due by 2/11/2025. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 1/28/2025. (km)(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
CHARLES HOWARD,
Case No. 1:24-cv-631
Plaintiff,
McFarland, J.
Bowman, M.J.
vs.
HAMILTON COUNTY JOB AND FAMILY
SERVICES, et al.,
Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff brings this pro se action against Hamilton County Job and Family
Services, Hamilton County Prosecutors Office, Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office and
Jillian Lee. By separate Order issued this date, plaintiff has been granted leave to
proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This matter is before the Court
for a sua sponte review of plaintiff’s amended 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. 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B).1
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
1
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 8, 2025. (See Doc. 2).
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 v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328-29 (1989); 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 Afantastic 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
2
alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The Court must accept
all well-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-harmedme 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).
Here, Plaintiff’s complaint appears to be challenging child support orders and
enforcement actions by Defendants. Namely, Plaintiff alleges, inter alia:
Jillian Lee on/under/with order number 7067973771 of Child Support
Enforcement agency made with unethical intentional false statements
known as perjury or false statements ,on or around July 1,2024 in the said
court .Ohio criminal code section 2921.13 (A) (2) (G), whether spoken,
writings, or both in litigations concerning debit and imprisonment in a civil
proceeding, subsequent Common Plea Case number 21-CRB20257 and
Domestic Relation case DV2101262 of November 12,2021 and the
unethical Termination of Plaintiff's Parenting time schedule after
investigations around March of 2023 is the exact and proximate result of
Compensatory damage claim.
(Doc. 2 at 2).
Plaintiff further alleges that Hamilton County JFS unethically removed minor
children from Plaintiff’s home. Id. Plaintiff seeks $999,999,999.99 in punitive damages
and $7,067,976,771 in compensatory damages. Id.
Plaintiff's amended complaint pertains to domestic relations issues, which are
3
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the states and fall outside the scope of federal
jurisdiction. In general, Ohio courts retain exclusive jurisdiction over matters involving
child custody and support. More than a century ago, the United States Supreme Court
proclaimed that “[t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent
and child, belongs to the laws of the states and not to the laws of the United States.” In
re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 10 S.Ct. 850, 853, 34 L.Ed. 500 (1890).
Thus, under the Burrus abstention doctrine, federal courts have universally
declined to exercise jurisdiction in domestic relations cases in which a complaint contains
only conclusory assertions that a plaintiff is entitled to relief because of the state's
constitutional violations, where those assertions are “a mere pretense and the suit is
actually concerned with domestic relations issues.” Danforth v. Celebrezze, 76 Fed. App'x
615, 616 (6th Cir.2002). Here, because Plaintiff's amended complaint pertains to his childsupport obligations, such issues are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the states and fall
outside the scope of federal jurisdiction. Danforth v. Celebrezze, 76 F. App'x 615, 616
(6th Cir. 2003). This Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction over such claims.
Accordingly, for these reasons, it is therefore RECOMMENDED this action be
DISMISSED with PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim for relief.
It is further
RECOMMENDED that 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 Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma
pauperis.
s/ Stephanie K. Bowman
Stephanie K. Bowman
United States Magistrate Judge
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
CHARLES HOWARD,
Case No. 1:24-cv-631
Plaintiff,
McFarland, J.
Bowman, M.J.
vs.
HAMILTON COUNTY JOB AND FAMILY
SERVICES, et al.,
Defendants.
NOTICE
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written
objections to this Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after
being served with a copy thereof. That period may be extended further by the Court on
timely motion by either side for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the
portion(s) of the R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in
support of the objections. A party shall respond to an opponent’s objections within
FOURTEEN DAYS after being served with a copy of those objections. 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).
5
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?