Lott v. Ohio Bar Association et al
Filing
3
ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Complaint filed by Harry William Lott. It is RECOMMENDED that the action be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Doc. No. 2 , is GRANTED. Objections to R&R due by 12/26/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 12/9/2013. (pes1)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
HARRY WILLIAM LOTT,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Civil Action 2:13-cv-1205
Judge Marbley
Magistrate Judge King
OHIO BAR ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Doc.
No. 2, is GRANTED.
All judicial officers who render services in this
action shall do so as if the costs had been prepaid.
However, having
reviewed the Complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the
Court concludes that the action should be dismissed for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
This
is
yet
another
in
a
long
line
of
frivolous
lawsuits
initiated by this plaintiff in this Court. In this case, plaintiff
asserts claims for monetary damages against bar associations, the Yale
Law
School
United
and
States
allegations
are
various
educational
Department
not
entirely
of
accrediting
Education.
clear,
it
agencies,
Although
appears
that
and
the
plaintiff’s
plaintiff
is
unhappy that he does not have a law degree and a license to practice
law in Ohio.
Plaintiff specifically refers to Gov. Bar R. Rule 1(B),
which requires that a candidate for admission to the practice of law
in Ohio must, inter alia, have earned a bachelor’s degree from an
1
accredited college or university.1
The Complaint, Doc. No. 1, purports
to assert claims under the First Amendment, the False Claims Act, the
Due Process Clause, the “Dormant Commerce Clause,” and the anti-trust
laws, 15 U.S.C. § 13. “The plaintiff is seeking damages from the false
claims act to recover for damages done by the regionally refuses to
take degrees and credits from nationally school.”
Complaint, p.
5
[sic].
A federal court must dismiss a case filed in forma pauperis if
the action is frivolous, fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Although pro se
complaints are held “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers,” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), even
a pro se 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 (2007) (internal quotation marks
omitted). Under this “plausibility standard,” the well-pleaded facts
must permit more than the mere possibility of misconduct, they must
show “that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Id.
Although federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over
general challenges to state bar rules, District of Columbia Court of
Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 487 (1983), the Court concludes that
the Complaint fails to state a claim for relief under any of the
statutes invoked by plaintiff.
Plaintiff does not allege that, but
for
would
1
the
rule
in
question,
he
otherwise
have
qualified
for
The Complaint, Doc. No. 1, does not allege that plaintiff holds a bachelor’s
degree from any institution, accredited or otherwise.
admission to practice law in Ohio.
F.2d 798 (1st Cir. 1972).
that
plaintiff
institution.
has
a
See, e.g., Lombardi, v. Tauro, 470
Specifically, the Complaint does not allege
bachelor’s
degree
from
even
an
unaccredited
Moreover, the Complaint does not allege that plaintiff
was denied a license to practice law because of his exercise of his
First Amendment rights, nor does the Complaint allege facts stating a
claim
under
the
False
Claims
Act,
31
U.S.C.
§3729.
There
is
no
allegation that plaintiff has met the State’s standards for a law
license,
but
has
been
Finally,
plaintiff’s
denied
claims
that
under
license
the
without
Commerce
due
Clause
process.
and
the
antitrust laws are, quite simply, unintelligible.2
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the action be dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report
and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days, file
and serve on all parties objections to the Report and Recommendation,
specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part
thereof in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto.
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
28
Response to objections
must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy
thereof.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to
the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to
de novo review by the District Judge and of the right to appeal the
2
For example, in support of his claim of monopoly, plaintiff alleges, “The ABA
are in gauging in regionally accredited school are in gauging in a monopoly
when the they refuses to take national accredited accredits and degrees into
their program.” Complaint, P. 5 [sic].
3
decision of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation.
See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of
Teachers, Local 231 etc., 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987); United States
v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
s/Norah McCann King
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge
December 9, 2013
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?