UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

ANTOINE S. LEE, Case No. 1:22-cv-113 Plaintiff, Black, J. vs. Litkovitz, M.J.

BALDEEP SINGH, et al., REPORT AND Defendants. RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, a resident of Cincinnati, Ohio, has filed a pro se civil complaint against Baldeep Singh, the owner of the Travel Inn Hotel, and Fagura, LLC. (Doc. 1-1). By separate Order, plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to

. This matter is now before the Court for a sua sponte review of the complaint to determine whether the complaint or any portion of it should be dismissed because it 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. See Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 § 804,

(e)(2)(B). Screening of Complaint A. Legal Standard In enacting the original in forma pauperis statute, Congress recognized that a “litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.” Denton v. Hernandez,

(1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989)). To prevent such abusive litigation, Congress has authorized federal courts to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint if they are satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious. Id.; see also

(e)(2)(B)(i). A complaint may be dismissed as frivolous when the plaintiff cannot make any claim with a rational or arguable basis in fact or law. Neitzke,

; see also Lawler v. Marshall,

(6th Cir. 1990). An action has no arguable legal basis when the defendant is immune from suit or when plaintiff claims a

violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist. Neitzke,

. An action has no arguable factual basis when the allegations are delusional or rise to the level of the irrational or “wholly incredible.” Denton,

; Lawler,

. The Court need not accept as true factual allegations that are “fantastic or delusional” in reviewing a complaint for frivolousness. Hill v. Lappin,

(6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Neitzke,

). Congress also has authorized the sua sponte dismissal of complaints that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

(e)(2)(B)(ii). A complaint filed by a pro se plaintiff must be “liberally construed” and “held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus,

(2007) (per

curiam) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble,

(1976)). By the same token, however, the complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007)); see also Hill,

(“dismissal standard articulated in Iqbal and Twombly governs dismissals for failure to state a claim” under §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

2 Iqbal,

(citing Twombly,

). The Court must accept all well- pleaded factual allegations as true, but need not “accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Twombly,

(quoting Papasan v. Allain,

(1986)). Although a complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” it must provide

“more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal,

(citing Twombly,

). A pleading that offers “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly,

. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders “naked assertion[s]” devoid of “further factual enhancement.”

. The complaint must “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson,

(citations omitted). B. Plaintiff’s Complaint Plaintiff alleges that he was employed at the Travel Inn Hotel in Sharonville, Ohio from mid-October until the day after Thanksgiving in 2021. He alleges he was paid $10.00 per hour. Plaintiff resided at the hotel, and the owners deducted $50.00 per day from his wages as the cost

of renting a room. Plaintiff alleges he was given more rooms to clean than another employee and complained that he did not believe he was being paid enough for the work he was doing. He alleges he was not given proper training to address the cleaning issues he confronted in his work, such as “bed bugs, bucket of urines, roaches.” (Doc. 1-1 at PAGEID 22). He also alleges he hurt his back when he lifted the beds to vacuum under them. He was subsequently fired from the position when he “and another resident got into it” and plaintiff was falsely accused of stealing a hotel patron’s purse. He alleges he is suing the owner of the Travel Inn Hotel because the owner made him “work in unsafe working conditions” and “also for

3 negligence.” (Id. at PAGEID 23). Plaintiff alleges the foregoing actions caused him mental distress. As relief, plaintiff “would like to be paid $150,000 dollars.” (Id. at PAGEID 20). C. Resolution Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to state a claim with an arguable basis in law over

which this federal Court has subject matter jurisdiction. To the extent plaintiff seeks to invoke the diversity jurisdiction of the Court under

(a), the complaint reveals such jurisdiction is lacking. In order for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to § 1332(a) to lie, the citizenship of the plaintiff must be “diverse from the citizenship of each defendant” thereby ensuring “complete diversity.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis,

(1996) (citing State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Tashire,

(1967)); see also Napletana v. Hillsdale College,

(6th Cir. 1967); Winningham v. North American Res. Corp.,

(S.D. Ohio 1992). In this case, both plaintiff and the defendants are citizens of Ohio. Therefore, the complaint does not allege that the citizenship of plaintiff and all of the defendants is diverse.

(1).

Therefore, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of citizenship over any state law claims plaintiff may be alleging. In addition, the Court is without federal question jurisdiction over the complaint. District courts also have original federal question jurisdiction over cases “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

. In order to invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction pursuant to

, plaintiff must allege facts showing the cause of action involves an issue of federal law. See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor,

(1987). The undersigned is unable to discern from the facts alleged in the

4 complaint any federal statutory or constitutional provision that applies to give rise to an actionable claim for relief. IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT: 1. The complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to

(e)(2)(B). 2. The Court certify pursuant to

(a) that for the foregoing reasons an appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in good faith and therefore deny plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Plaintiff remains free to apply to proceed in forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals. See Callihan v. Schneider,

(6th Cir. 1999), overruling in part Floyd v. United States Postal Serv.,

(6th Cir. 1997).

Date: _ 3/17/2022 Fy x Lathe onde Karen L. Litkovitz United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

GERALD CARDISH, JR., Case No. 1:21-cv-649 Plaintiff, Cole, J. vs Litkovitz, M.J.

U.S. IMMIGRATION, et al., Defendants.

NOTICE

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. This period may be extended further by the Court on timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report 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 on the 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 14 DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); United States v. Walters,

(6th Cir. 1981).

6