UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

JAMES W.D. WILLIAMS, IV Plaintiff, Case No. 3:22-cv-257 v. JUDGE WALTER H. RICE FRANK DISTLER, et al. Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Plaintiff, James W.D. Williams, IV, an Ohio inmate who is proceeding without the assistance of counsel, brings this negligence action under Ohio state law against Frank Distler and Freda Williams, the operator and owner, respectively, of a vehicle in which Plaintiff was allegedly injured during a car accident, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, the insurer of the vehicle. (Am. Compl., ECF No. 1-2.) This matter is before the Court for the initial screen of Plaintiff's Complaint under

(e)(2) and 1915A 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.

(e)(2), 1915A(b)(1 H{2); see also McGore v. Wrigglesworth,

(6th Cir. 1997). Having performed the initial screen, for the reasons that follow, this action is DISMISSED pursuant to §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b)(1) for failure to assert any claim over which this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction.

This matter is also before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis under

(a)(1) and (2), which is GRANTED. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff is required to pay the full amount of the Court’s $350 filing fee.

(b)(1). Plaintiff's certified trust fund statement reveals that he has $40.82 in his prison account, which is insufficient to pay the filing fee. Pursuant to

(b)(1), the custodian of Plaintiffs inmate trust accounts at Greene County Adult Detention Center is DIRECTED to submit to the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio as an initial partial payment, 20% of the greater of either the average monthly deposits to the inmate trust account or the average monthly balance in the inmate trust account, for the six months immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint. After full payment of the initial, partial filing fee, the custodian shall submit 20% of the inmate’s preceding monthly income credited to the account, but only when the amount in the account exceeds $10.00, until the full fee of $350.00 has been paid to the Clerk of this Court.

(b)(2). See McGore v. Wrigglesworth,

(6th Cir. 1997). Checks should be made payable to: Clerk, United States District Court. The checks should be sent to: Prisoner Accounts Receivable 260 U.S. Courthouse 85 Marconi Boulevard Columbus, Ohio 43215 The prisoner’s name and this case number must be included on each check. It is ORDERED that Plaintiff be allowed to prosecute his action without prepayment of fees or costs and that judicial officers who render services in this action shall do so as if the costs had been prepaid. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and

the prison cashier’s office. The Clerk is further DIRECTED to forward a copy of this Order to the Court’s financial office in Columbus. I. STANDARD OF REVIEW Under

(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

(e)(2)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). Williams v. Cincy Urban Apts., No. 1:10-cv-153,

, at *2 n.1 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 9, 2010) (citing Carlock v. Williams,

,

, at *2 (6th Cir. June 22, 1999) (table)). II. ANALYSIS Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Frank Distler negligently operated a motor vehicle in which Plaintiff was a passenger and that Plaintiff suffered severe bodily and mental injury as a result. (Am. Compl., ECF No. 1-2, PAGEID #32-33.) He also names as Defendants Freda Williams, the owner of the vehicle, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, the insurer of the vehicle. Plaintiff “demands judgment in excess of $25,000.” (/d. at PAGEID #33.) 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

, which provides for federal-question jurisdiction, and § 1332, which provides for diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp.,

(2006) (cleaned up). Federal-question jurisdiction is invoked when a plaintiff pleads a claim “arising under” the federal laws or the United States Constitution. /d. (citation omitted). Fora federal court to have diversity jurisdiction pursuant to § 1332(a), there must be complete diversity, 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,

(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 y. Fisher,

(6th Cir. 2010); see also Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,

(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,

(2009) (cleaned up). In this case, Plaintiffs allegations of negligence related to the motor vehicle accident that caused his injuries pertain squarely to state law and do not arise under federal laws or the United States Constitution. Nor has Plaintiff alleged that he and Defendants are citizens of different states or that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege facts upon which the Court could rely to conclude that this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over his claims.

Ill. DISPOSITION For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis under

(a)(1) and (2) (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case. The Clerk is further DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and the prison cashier’s office and to forward a copy of this Order to the Court’s financial office in Columbus.

IT ISSO ORDERED. Lar KA, WALTER H. RICE, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT