Hosseinipour v. Ohio Edison Jersey Line
4:25-cv-00792
| N.D. Ohio | Jul 15, 2025Background
- Ahmad Hosseinipour, proceeding pro se, filed an in forma pauperis civil complaint against Ohio Edison, First Energy, and Tri Eagle Energy.
- Plaintiff claims Ohio Edison disconnected his electricity for safety and refused to reconnect it after he allegedly resolved the safety issue.
- The complaint does not specify any claim for relief or cite any cause of action, other than requesting reconnection of electricity.
- Plaintiff asserts federal jurisdiction based on a federal question but does not describe any federal law allegedly violated.
- No diversity of citizenship or sufficient amount in controversy is pled to support diversity jurisdiction.
- The court reviewed subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte, as is required for all federal courts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has federal subject-matter jurisdiction | Jurisdiction exists on federal question grounds | Not specifically presented | No federal question or diversity; dismissed |
| Whether the complaint states a claim arising under federal law | Cut electricity, then refused reconnection | Not specifically presented | No claim under federal law alleged |
| Whether diversity jurisdiction applies | Jurisdiction should exist | Not specifically presented | No diversity; dismissed |
| Whether the action can proceed in federal court | Should order reconnection | Not specifically presented | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Answers in Genesis of Ky., Inc. v. Creation Ministries Int’l, Ltd., 556 F.3d 459 (6th Cir. 2009) (federal courts must always consider their subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Mich. S. R.R. Co. v. Branch & St. Joseph Counties Rail Users Ass’n, Inc., 287 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2002) (federal question must appear on the face of the complaint)
- Eastman v. Marine Mech. Corp., 438 F.3d 544 (6th Cir. 2006) (plaintiff bears burden of demonstrating subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (subject-matter jurisdiction must be demonstrated by the party invoking it)