Wiley v. Moynihan

• Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio
• Decided: September 8, 2022
• Docket: 5:22-cv-01293
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Sherry Ann Wiley, ) CASE NO: 5:22CV1293 ) Plaintiff, ) JUDGE JOHN ADAMS ) v. ) MEMORANDUM OF OPINION ) AND ORDER ) Brian Moynihan, et al. ) ) ) Defendants. )

Pro se plaintiff Sherry Ann Wiley filed this action against a number of employees and the CEO of Bank of America. For the following reasons, this action is dismissed.1 I. Standard of Review Pro se pleadings are held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers” and must be liberally construed. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Franklin v. Rose, 765 F.2d 82, 85 (6th Cir. 1985) (pro se complaints are entitled to liberal construction) (citations omitted). The Court is not required, however, to conjure unpleaded facts or construct claims on a pro se plaintiff’s behalf. See Grinter v. Knight, 532 F.3d 567, 577 (6th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted); Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1277-78 (4th Cir. 1985). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and, “[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). “[D]efects in subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived by the

1 Wiley’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is GRANTED. parties and may be addressed by a court on its own motion at any stage of the proceedings.” Owens v. Brock, 860 F.2d 1363, 1367 (6th Cir. 1988) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3)); Curry v. US. Bulk Transp., Inc., 462 F.3d 536, 539 (6th Cir. 2006) (same) (citing Owens, 860 F.2d at 1367). II. Law and Analysis

A. No Federal Jurisdiction Federal courts, unlike state trial courts, do not have general jurisdiction to review all questions of law. See Ohio ex rel. Skaggs v. Brunner, 549 F.3d 468, 474 (6th Cir. 2008). Rather, they have only the authority to decide cases that the Constitution and Congress have empowered them to resolve. Id. Consequently, “[i]t is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377(1994) (internal citation omitted). Generally, the Constitution and Congress have given federal courts authority to

hear a case only when diversity of citizenship exists between the parties, or when the case raises a federal question. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). The first type of federal jurisdiction, diversity of citizenship, is applicable to cases of sufficient value between “citizens of different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). To establish diversity of citizenship, the plaintiff must establish that he or she is a citizen of one state and all of the defendants are citizens of other states. The citizenship of a natural person equates to his or her domicile. Von Dunser v. Aronoff, 915 F.2d 1071, 1072 (6th Cir.1990). The second type of federal jurisdiction relies on the presence of a federal question. This type of jurisdiction arises where a “well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27–28 (1983). Diversity of citizenship does not exist in this case. A plaintiff in federal court has the burden of pleading sufficient facts to support the existence of the court’s jurisdiction.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. In a diversity action, the plaintiff must state the citizenship of all parties so that the existence of complete diversity can be confirmed. Washington v. Sulzer Orthopedics, Inc., No. 03-3350, 2003 WL 22146143, at *1 (6th Cir. Sept. 16, 2003). Here, the complaint suggests that the plaintiff is a citizen of Ohio and that numerous defendants are also citizens of Ohio. Plaintiff has therefore failed to establish diversity of citizenship. Accordingly, federal subject matter jurisdiction cannot be based on diversity of citizenship. If federal jurisdiction exists in this case, it must be based on a claimed violation of federal law. In determining whether a claim arises under federal law, the Court looks only

to the “well-pleaded allegations of the Complaint and ignores potential defenses” a defendant may raise. Mikulski v. Centerior Energy Corp., 501 F.3d 555, 560 (6th Cir. 2007). Although the well-pleaded-complaint rule focuses on what a plaintiff alleges, it allows the Court to look past the words of the complaint to determine whether the allegations ultimately involve a federal question. Ohio ex rel. Skaggs, 549 F.3d at 475. In addition to causes of action expressly created by federal law, federal-question jurisdiction also reaches ostensible state-law claims that: (1) necessarily depend on a substantial and disputed federal issue, (2) are completely preempted by federal law or (3) are truly federal-law claims in disguise. See Mikulski, 501 F.3d at 560; City of Warren v. City of Detroit, 495 F.3d 282, 286 (6th Cir. 2007). Here, Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and therefore enjoys the benefit of a liberal construction of his pleadings and filings. Boswell v. Mayer, 169 F.3d 384, 387 (6th Cir. 1999). Indeed, this standard of liberal construction “requires active interpretation ... to

construe a pro se petition ‘to encompass any allegation stating federal relief.’” Haines, 404 U.S. at 520. But even with the Court’s liberal construction, Plaintiff failed to properly identify a federal question in this case. While Plaintiff recounts in detail the alleged issues she had in her dealings with Bank of America, she has not alleged any facts that suggest any type of federal claim. Instead, it appears that she believes that certain actors engaged in criminal conduct. Nothing in the complaint can be construed to allege any civil cause of action that arises under federal law. Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot rely on federal question jurisdiction. III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, this action is dismissed. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED. September 2, 2022 _/s/ John R. Adams________________ JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT