Ransom v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.

Filing 2

ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is granted. It is recommended that this case be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §§1915(e)(2). ( Objections to R&R due by 12/8/2014) Terminating:( 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Jeffrey Ransom.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Terence P Kemp on 11/20/2014. (agm1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Jeffrey Ransom,

:

Plaintiff,

:
:

Owens-Illinois, Inc.,
Defendant.

JUDGE JAMES L. GRAHAM

:

v.

Case No.

2:14-cv-1845

Magistrate Judge Kemp

:

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, Jeffrey Ransom, a resident of Chandlersville, Ohio
(which is in Muskingum County), filed this action against his
former employer, Owens-Illinois, Inc.
proceed in forma pauperis.

He has moved for leave to

That motion (Doc. 1) is granted.

For

the following reasons, however, it will be recommended that this
case be dismissed.
I.

The In Forma Pauperis Statute

28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2) provides that in proceedings in forma
pauperis, “[t]he court shall dismiss the case if ... (B) the
action ... is frivolous or malicious [or] fails to state a claim
on which relief can be granted....”

The purpose of this

statutory section is to prevent suits which are a waste of
judicial resources and which a paying litigant would not initiate
because of the costs involved.
319 (1989).

See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.

A complaint may be dismissed as frivolous only when

the plaintiff fails to present a claim with an arguable or
rational basis in law or fact.

See id. at 325.

Claims which

lack such a basis include those for which the defendants are
clearly entitled to immunity and claims of infringement of a
legal interest which does not exist, see id. at 327-28, and
“claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims with

which federal district judges are all too familiar.”
see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992).

Id. at 328;

A complaint

may not be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted if the complaint contains “enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”

Bell

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007).

Claims

against defendants who are immune from suits for money damages,
such as judges or prosecutors acting in their judicial or
prosecutorial capacity, are also within the ambit of §1915A. Pro
se complaints are to be construed liberally in favor of the pro
se party.

See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972).

Ms.

Dotson’s complaint will be reviewed under these legal standards.
II.

The Facts

The facts of the case, taken from the complaint, can be
stated as follows.

Mr. Ransom worked for Owens-Brockway (whose

relationship to Owens-Illinois is not described in the complaint)
and, in 2012, was injured on the job.
returned to work in 2013.

He had surgery and

He was given a light duty job.

As a

result of an incident which occurred on May 31, 2013, he was
asked to submit to a drug test.

When he refused, he was fired.

His grievance was denied, but he was offered retirement at the
third step of the grievance process.

He claims that he was

unfairly treated and his employer was “negligent” in its handling
of the matter.

He seeks damages in the amount of $3,000,000.00.
III.

Legal Analysis

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, meaning
that they can only exercise jurisdiction over cases to the extent
authorized by Article III of the United States Constitution and
by Act of Congress.

The two most common bases of federal court

jurisdiction are “diversity jurisdiction” - that is, the
plaintiff and defendant are citizens of different States, and the
case involves at least $75,000.00 - and “federal question”
-2-

jurisdiction, meaning that the case arises under the Constitution
or laws of the United States.

If neither of these describes the

case, the Court has no power to hear or decide it.
In his complaint, Mr. Ransom checked a box indicating that
the jurisdictional basis of his suit is 28 U.S.C. §442.
there is no such statute.

However,

His complaint about discrimination

based on a workplace injury is not a federally-based claim.

Any

claim for retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim
arises under Ohio Rev. Code §4123.90, not under federal law.
Carey v. ODW Logistics Inc., 2010 WL 596503, *5 (S.D. Ohio
Feb. 16, 2010)(noting that the plaintiff’s “worker’s compensation
retaliation claim ... [is a] state law claim[] ... governed by
the law of Ohio”).

He may be attempting to assert that he was

either treated improperly or discharged in violation of a
collective bargaining agreement.

That is a federal law claim

which arises under section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations
Act, 29 U.S.C. §185; however, the employer cannot be sued for
breach of the collective bargaining agreement in a stand-alone
suit.

In order to bring that type of claim (known as a “hybrid

§301 action”), the union must also be joined as a party, and the
complaint must allege a breach by the union of its duty of fair
representation.

See Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers, Local 391

v. Terry, 494 U.S. 558, 564 (1990).

Further, any such suit must

be brought within six months of the events about which the
plaintiff complains.

DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of

Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (1983).

That did not happen here.

Consequently, if the Court were to construe the case as having
been brought under §301, the complaint does not state a proper
claim and it is barred by the six-month statute of limitations.
The Court notes that the complaint does not identify the
citizenship of Owens-Illinois.

It appears that Owens-Illinois

has its principal place of business in Toledo, Ohio, and is
-3-

therefore a citizen of Ohio for purposes of the statute which
gives this Court jurisdiction over suits between citizens of
different states.

See 28 U.S.C. §1332(c)(1) (“a corporation

shall be deemed to be a citizen of ... the State ... where it has
its principal place of business ...”).
Ohio citizen.

Mr. Ransom is

also an

Consequently, the Court cannot exercise

jurisdiction over this case under that statute.
IV.

Recommendation

For all of the reasons set forth above, it is recommended
that this case be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §§1915(e)(2) either
because the Court lacks jurisdiction or because the complaint
fails to state a claim under federal law.

Should this

recommendation be adopted, the Clerk should be directed to mail a
copy of the complaint, this Report and Recommendation, and any
dismissal order to the defendant.
V.

Procedure on Objections

Any party may, within fourteen days after this Order is
filed, file and serve on the opposing party a motion for
reconsideration by a District Judge.

28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A),

Rule 72(a), Fed. R. Civ. P.; Eastern Division Order No. 14-01,
pt. IV(C)(3)(a).

The motion must specifically designate the

order or part in question and the basis for any objection.
Responses to objections are due fourteen days after objections
are filed and replies by the objecting party are due seven days
thereafter.

The District Judge, upon consideration of the

motion, shall set aside any part of this Order found to be
clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
This order is in full force and effect even if a motion for
reconsideration has been filed unless it is stayed by either the
Magistrate Judge or District Judge.

S.D. Ohio L.R. 72.4.

/s/ Terence P. Kemp
United States Magistrate Judge
-4-

-5-