Wilcox v. Ohio Depart of Rehab and Correction

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION QUANTEZ WILCOX, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action 1:25-cv-175 Judge Michael R. Barrett Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura OHIO DEPART OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION, Defendant. ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff, Quantez Wilcox, an Ohio inmate proceeding without the assistance of counsel, sues Defendant Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction for its officer’s negligence in causing injury to Plaintiff’s hand. This matter is before the Court for the initial screen of Plaintiff’s Complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 (e)(2) and 1915A(b)(1) 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), 1915A(b)(1)– (2); see also McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608 (6th Cir. 1997). For the reasons below, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court DISMISS this action under §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b)(1) for failure to assert any claim over which this Court has subjectmatter jurisdiction. This matter is also before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (b)(1). Plaintiff’s certified trust fund statement reveals that he has $3.89 in his trust fund account, which is insufficient to pay the filing fee. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (b)(1), the custodian of Plaintiff’s inmate trust accounts (Inmate ID Number A806252) at Lebanon Correctional Institution 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (b)(2). See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (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. I. BACKGROUND 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. But in this case, 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 Urb. 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 January 25, 2025, C/O Heiland instructed Plaintiff to place trash from the cafeteria in the can room. The can room became full such that the trash prevented the metal door to the room from closing. Heiland began pulling and yanking on the door while instructing Plaintiff to push the trash further into the room. Plaintiff’s middle finger was slammed by the metal door as Heiland forced the door closed. Plaintiff’s finger was immediately bandaged and splinted, and Plaintiff underwent an X-ray and met with a specialist via a telehealth appointment several days later. (Compl., ECF No. 1-1, PAGEID #17–20.) Plaintiff’s civil cover sheet checks the box for “other personal injury” torts and states that his claim is one of “negligence.” (ECF No. 1-2.) Plaintiff also states that “my own negligence was way under 40% of the cause of my injuries.” (Compl., ECF No. 1-1, PAGEID #21.) Plaintiff demands $15,025 in damages. (Civil Cover Sheet, ECF No. 1-2.) 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 under § 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 requires a pleading to contain “a short plain statement of the grounds for jurisdiction.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). 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’s negligence claim for personal injury is governed by state law. See Losey v. N. Am. Philips Consumer Elecs. Corp., 792 F.2d 58, 62 (6th Cir. 1986) (“The rights and duties at issue here, regarding the right to recover damages for negligence, are creatures of state law.”). Plaintiff has identified no claims arising under federal laws or the United States Constitution to establish subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 . 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 that the parties are citizens of different states, and he seeks only $15,025 in damages. Plaintiff therefore has not plausibly alleged that § 1332’s diversity-of-citizenship or amount-in-controversy requirements are satisfied. In summary, because Plaintiff asserts only a state-law claim, and because Plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege facts on which this Court could rely to conclude that the requisite diversity of citizenship or amount in controversy 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 Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED. For the reasons set forth above, it is RECOMMENDED that the Court DISMISS this action under §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b)(1) for failure to assert any claim over which this Court has subjectmatter 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