UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Charles L. Tingler, Plaintiff, Case No. 2:24-cv-468 Vv. Judge Michael H. Watson Ohio General Assembly, et a/., Magistrate Judge Deavers Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER Charles L. Tingler (“Plaintiff”) sues the Ohio General Assembly and the Supreme Court of Ohio (collectively “Defendants”), alleging violations of the United States Constitution. Compl., ECF No. 2. The Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiffs pro se Complaint under

(e)(2) and issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the Court dismiss the same. R&R, ECF No. 3. Plaintiff timely objected. Obj., ECF No. 4. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs objections are OVERRULED; the R&R is ADOPTED. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff's claims arise out of Ohio’s rules and practices for appointing state court judges in certain circumstances. See generally Compl., ECF No. 2. In Plaintiffs view, these practices violate the separation of powers doctrine. /d. Plaintiff asks the Court to issue an injunction to “rectify” these allegedly unlawful practices, seemingly through an amendment to the Ohio Constitution. /d.

The R&R recommends dismissing the Complaint for several reasons. R&R 4—7, ECF No. 3. First, the R&R determines that Plaintiff lacks standing. /d. at 5-6. Next, the R&R explains that Plaintiffs claim against the Ohio General Assembly is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. /d. at 6. Third, the R&R recommends dismissing the claims against the Supreme Court of Ohio because it is not sui juris.

Finally, the R&R concludes that the federal courts lack the power to force an amendment to the Ohio Constitution. /d. at 7. Plaintiff has timely objected to the R&R. Obj., ECF No. 4. | STANDARD OF REVIEW Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), the Court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R that Plaintiff specifically objected to. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). lil. ANALYSIS Plaintiff objects to the R&R’s conclusions about standing, the Eleventh Amendment, and the federal court’s power to order an amendment to the Ohio Constitution. Obj., ECF No. 4. Upon de novo review, the Court agrees with the R&R that Plaintiff lacks standing, as explained further below. Because a lack of standing is fatal to Plaintiff's claims, the Court does not address Plaintiff's other objections. Under Article lil of the United States Constitution, federal jurisdiction is limited to “cases” and “controversies,” and standing is “an essential and unchanging part of’ this requirement. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife,

,

Case No. 2:24-cv-468 Page 2 of 4

560 (1992) (citation omitted). If the plaintiff lacks standing, then the federal court lacks jurisdiction. Va. House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill,

(2019). Thus, standing is a “threshold question in every federal case.” Warth v. Seldin,

(1975). Article II] standing has three elements. “First, the plaintiff must have suffered an ‘injury in fact-—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Lujan,

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Second, the injury must be “fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant.” /d. (cleaned up). Third, it must be likely that the injury will be “redressed by a favorable decision.” /d. at 561 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Here, Plaintiff lacks standing because he has not alleged an injury-in-fact. Although Plaintiff has many complaints about Ohio’s practices for appointed judges, he does not allege that he was injured by these practices. See generally, Compl., ECF No. 2. Rather, Plaintiff alleges only a “generalized grievance,” which is insufficient to support Article Ill standing. See Hollingsworth v. Perry,

(2013) (“[A] ‘generalized grievance,’ no matter how sincere, is insufficient to confer standing.”). In sum, Plaintiff has not alleged an injury-in-fact and, thus, has not alleged that he has Article Ill standing. Because Plaintiff lacks standing, his claims must be dismissed.

Case No. 2:24-cv-468 Page 3 of 4

As a final note, the R&R explains that Plaintiff has filed multiple frivolous lawsuits in several courts, including 84 actions in the Supreme Court of Ohio. R&R 4-5, ECF No. 3 (citing Stafe ex rel. Tingler v. Franklin Cty. Prosecutor’s Off.,

(Table), 553 (Ohio 2023)). Plaintiff is CAUTIONED that if he continues to file frivolous lawsuits, this Court may declare him a vexatious litigator. IV. CONCLUSION For these reasons, Plaintiffs objections are OVERRULED, and the R&R is ADOPTED. The Clerk shall close the case. For all the reasons explained in the R&R and this Opinion and Order, the Court CERTIFIES that an appeal of this Opinion and Order would not be taken in good faith. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(a). IT IS SO ORDERED. . i MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. 2:24-cv-468 Page 4 of 4