Coles v. Mancor Industries et al

Filing 4

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1 THAT THE COURT DISMISS THIS ACTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) AND FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3)- Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the Court DISMISS this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2)(B)(i ) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). It is further RECOMMENDED that the Court CERTIFY that an appeal of an Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would be frivolous and not taken in good faith, and therefore Plaintiff be DENIED in forma pauperis status on such an appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). re 2 Complaint filed by Anthony Coles Objections to R&R due by 12/28/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman on 12/9/15. (pb)(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 AT DAYTON
ANTHONY COLES,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:15-cv-420

vs.
MANCOR INDUSTRIES, et al.,

District Judge Walter H. Rice
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1 THAT THE COURT DISMISS THIS ACTION
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) AND FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3)

This case is before the Court for a sua sponte review of pro se Plaintiff Anthony Coles’
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (“IFP”) on November 24, 2015 (doc. 1), which the Court granted by Notation
Order. The Court stayed service of the complaint pending this initial review under § 1915(e)(2).
Finding Plaintiff’s claim barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the undersigned recommends
that this case be dismissed.
Pursuant to § 1915, the Court may dismiss a complaint upon finding: (1) the claims are
frivolous or malicious; (2) it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (3) it
seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B). A complaint “is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in
fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). It is appropriate for the Court to conduct
this review sua sponte prior to issuance of process “so as to spare prospective defendants the
inconvenience and expense of answering such complaints.”
1

Id. at 324.

In addition to

Attached hereto is a NOTICE to the parties regarding objections to this Report and
Recommendation.

§ 1915(e)(2) review, the Court must dismiss an action if it determines at any time that it lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
Here, pro se Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants Mancor Industries (“Mancor”)
and Daily Services LLC dba I-Force (“I-Force”), doc. 1 at PageID 5, after having previously
sued them in the Montgomery County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas alleging wrongful
discharge in violation of public policy. Doc. 1-2 at PageID 8, 10. The Common Pleas Court
ultimately granted summary judgment in Defendants’ favor, id. at PageID 8-16; the Second
District Court of Appeals affirmed; and the Supreme Court of Ohio declined jurisdiction. Coles
v. I-Force, No. 26385, 2015 WL 1277989 (Ohio Ct. App. Mar. 20, 2015), cert. denied, 143 Ohio
St. 3d 1466 (2015). In the action pending here, Plaintiff refers to the summary judgment
decision -- which he attaches as an exhibit -- and argues that such decision “is not supported[]
base[d] on the only provided/presented evidence[] to [the] court[.]” Doc. 1-1 at PageID 6; see
also doc. 1-5 at PageID 27-28. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that, in ruling against him, the
Common Pleas Court misrepresented his deposition testimony. Doc. 1-1 at PageID 6; doc. 1-3 at
PageID 18-19.
Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the federal courts lack authority to sit as a state
appellate court to review state-court determinations. District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.
Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). The Supreme
Court recently clarified that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies to “cases brought by statecourt losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district
court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those
judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 283–84 (2005). The
pertinent inquiry is whether the “source of injury” upon which the plaintiff bases his or her
2

federal claim is a state court judgment. McCormick v. Braverman, 451 F.3d 382, 393 (6th Cir.
2006).
Under the foregoing analysis, Plaintiff’s claim falls within the scope of the RookerFeldman doctrine. As previously noted, Plaintiff asserts that the Common Pleas decision -- later
affirmed on appeal -- was erroneous and unsupported by the evidence before the court, and
alleges no other source of injury. See doc. 1 at PageID 6. Plaintiff is clearly a “state-court loser”
inviting “review and rejection” of a state-court judgment against him. See Exxon, 544 U.S. at
284. Therefore, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, this Court may not exercise jurisdiction
over Plaintiff’s claim.
Because Plaintiff’s claim is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, it is legally
frivolous. See Parker v. Phillips, 27 F. App’x 491, 493–94 (6th Cir. 2001) (holding an action to
be frivolous under § 1915(e) where one ground for dismissal is Rooker–Feldman); see also
Carlock v. Williams, No. 98–5545, 1999 WL 454880, at *2 (6th Cir. June 22, 1999).
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the Court DISMISS this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). It is further RECOMMENDED that the Court
CERTIFY that an appeal of an Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would be
frivolous and not taken in good faith, and therefore Plaintiff be DENIED in forma pauperis
status on such an appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

Date:

December 9, 2015

s/ Michael J. Newman
Michael J. Newman
United States Magistrate Judge

3

NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written
objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within FOURTEEN days after being
served with this Report and Recommendation. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), this period is
extended to SEVENTEEN days because this Report and Recommendation is being served by
one of the methods of service listed in Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), or (F), and may be
extended further by the Court on timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify
the portions of the Report and Recommendation 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 of 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 FOURTEEN days after being
served with a copy thereof.

As is made clear above, this period is likewise extended to

SEVENTEEN days if service of the objections is made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C),
(D), (E), or (F). Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights
on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153-55 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d
947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).

4