Senbeta v. Tansunia

• Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
• Decided: September 4, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00984
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

FIKADU SENBETA,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action 2:25-cv-984 Judge Michael H. Watson Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura HAUGABOOK TANSUNIA,

Defendants.

ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff, Fikadu Senbeta, an Ohio resident proceeding without the assistance of counsel, brings this action against Defendant, Haugabook Tansunia, arising from a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff has submitted a request to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 1.) The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. All judicial officers who render services in this action shall do so as if the costs had been prepaid. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). This matter is also before the Court for the initial screen of Plaintiff’s Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to identify cognizable claims and to recommend dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint, or any portion of it, which 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). Having performed the initial screen, for the reasons that follow, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court DISMISS this action pursuant to § 1915(e)(2) for failure to assert any claim over which this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction. I. STANDARD OF REVIEW Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the federal in forma pauperis statute, Courts must sua sponte dismiss an action upon determining that an in forma pauperis complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Thus, a typical initial screen involves consideration of the merits of the claims asserted. In this case, however, upon review of Plaintiff’s Complaint, the undersigned

determines that it is unnecessary to consider the merits of the claims he advances because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear such claims. When the face of the complaint provides no basis for federal jurisdiction, the Court may dismiss an action as frivolous and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under both 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Williams v. Cincy Urban Apts., No. 1:10-cv-153, 2010 WL 883846, at *2 n.1 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 9, 2010) (citing Carlock v. Williams, 182 F.3d 916, 1999 WL 454880, at *2 (6th Cir. June 22, 1999) (table)). II. ANALYSIS Plaintiff alleges that on June 21, 2025, the car he was driving was struck by a car owned by Defendant Haugabook Tansunia, resulting in a five-car pileup on Hamilton Road in

Columbus, Ohio. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for his medical expenses, property damage, emotional distress, and loss of income. (Compl., ECF No. 1-1.) Plaintiff’s allegations fail to provide a basis for a claim over which this Court has jurisdiction. “The basic statutory grants of federal court subject-matter jurisdiction are contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides for federal-question jurisdiction, and § 1332, which provides for diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 501 (2006) (cleaned up). Federal-question jurisdiction is implicated when a plaintiff pleads a claim “arising under” the federal laws or the United States Constitution. Id. For a federal court to have diversity jurisdiction pursuant to § 1332(a), complete diversity of citizenship must exist (which means that each plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state than each defendant) and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1) requires a pleading to contain “a short plain statement of the grounds for jurisdiction.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Thus, “a plaintiff seeking

diversity jurisdiction [must] set forth the factual basis on which that jurisdiction is predicated.” Farmer v. Fisher, 386 F. App’x 554, 556 (6th Cir. 2010); see also Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (“[I]t is to be presumed that a cause lies outside [the Court’s] limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.”). Although this pleading standard does not require “detailed factual allegations,” a complaint will not “suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (cleaned up). Here, Plaintiff has not identified any claims arising under federal laws or the United States Constitution to establish subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. To the contrary, Plaintiff’s personal injury claims are creatures of state law. See, e.g., Ketring v. City of

Loveland, No. 1:21-CV-582, 2023 WL 3853435, at *6 (S.D. Ohio June 6, 2023). Nor can Plaintiff rely on diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 to establish this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff does not allege the parties are citizens of different states, and, indeed, provides an Ohio service address for Defendant. Plaintiff therefore has not plausibly alleged that § 1332’s diversity of citizenship requirement is satisfied. In summary, because Plaintiff has not identified any federal statutory or constitutional provision under which his claims arise, and because Plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege facts upon which this Court could rely to conclude that diversity of citizenship is satisfied, it is RECOMMENDED that the Court DISMISS this action for failure to assert any claim over which this Court has subject matter jurisdiction WITHOUT PREJUDICE to filing the claims in state court. III. DISPOSITION For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2) (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED. In addition, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Court DISMISS this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to § 1915(e)(2) for failure to assert any claim over which this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction.

PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with supporting authority for the objection(s). A District Judge of this Court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. Upon proper objections, a District Judge of this Court may accept,

reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further evidence or may recommit this matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the District Judge review the Report and Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Chelsey M. Vascura CHELSEY M. VASCURA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE