Case Information
*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
AARON SMITH, Case No. 1:25-cv-271
Plaintiff,
Cole, J.
vs. Bowman, M.J.
STATE OF OHIO,
Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff brings this pro se action against the State of Ohio. By separate Order, plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This matter is before the Court for a sua sponte review of plaintiff’s complaint to determine whether the complaint, or any portion of it, should be dismissed 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. 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B).
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, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (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 28 U.S.C. § 1915(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 v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328-29 (1989); see also Lawler v. *2 Marshall , 898 F.2d 1196, 1198 (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, 490 U.S. at 327. An action has no arguable factual basis when the allegations are delusional or rise to the level of the irrational or “wholly incredible.” Denton, 504 U.S. at 32; Lawler, 898 F.2d at 1199. The Court need not accept as true factual allegations that are fantastic or delusional in reviewing a complaint for frivolousness. Hill v. Lappin , 630 F.3d 468, 471 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Neitzke , 490 U.S. at 328).
Congress also has authorized the sua sponte dismissal of complaints that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (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 , 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (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 , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also Hill , 630 F.3d at 470-71 (“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.” Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly , 550 U.S. at 556). 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 , 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting Papasan v. Allain , *3 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). Although a complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” it must provide “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed- me accusation.” Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555). A pleading that offers “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders “naked assertion[s]” devoid of “further factual enhancement.” Id. at 557. The complaint must “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson , 551 U.S. at 93 (citations omitted).
Here, Plaintiff appears to challenge his underlying conviction in State of Ohio v. Aaron Smith , Case No B1300129 in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff’s complaint asserts eight claims against the State of Ohio: (1) fraud; (2) violation of civil rights; (3) ineffective assistance of counsel; (4) abuse of process; (5) defamation; (6) pain and suffering; (7) UCC and contract violations and (8) denial of procedural due process. (Doc. 1, pp. 7-10). Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief and compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $5,000,000.00. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Notably, the State of Ohio is immune from suit in this federal court. Absent an express waiver, the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution bars suit against a State or one of its agencies or departments in federal court regardless of the nature of the relief sought. Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida , 517 U.S. 44, 58, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996); Pennhurst State School v. Halderman , 465 U.S. 89, 100, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984); Alabama v. Pugh , 438 U.S. 781, 782, 98 S.Ct. 3057, 57 L.Ed.2d 1114 (1978); Edelman v. Jordan , 415 U.S. 651, 663, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 *4 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974). The sovereign immunity guaranteed by this Amendment deprives federal courts of subject-matter jurisdiction when a citizen sues his own State unless the State waives its immunity or Congress abrogates that sovereign immunity. Pennhurst , 465 U.S.at 98–100.The exceptions to the Eleventh Amendment bar of suits in federal court against a state do not apply in this case. The State of Ohio has neither constitutionally nor statutorily waived its Eleventh Amendment rights. See Mixon v. State of Ohio , 193 F.3d 389, 397 (6th Cir.1999); State of Ohio v. Madeline Marie Nursing Homes , 694 F.2d 449, 460 (6th Cir.1982); Ohio Inns, Inc. v. Nye , 542 F.2d 673, 681 (6th Cir.1976); see also Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police , 491 U.S. 58, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989). Nor has plaintiff sued a state official seeking prospective relief for future constitutional violations. Ex Parte Young , 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908). In addition, Congress did not “explicitly and by clear language” express its intent to “abrogate the Eleventh Amendment immunity of the States” in enacting Section 1983. See Quern v. Jordan , 440 U.S. 332, 341–43, 345, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979). Therefore, plaintiff’s claims for relief against the State of Ohio should be dismissed.
Accordingly, for these reasons, it is therefore RECOMMENDED this action be DISMISSED with PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim for relief. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(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 .
s/ Stephanie K. Bowman Stephanie K. Bowman United States Magistrate Judge *5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
AARON SMITH, Case No. 1:25-cv-271
Plaintiff,
Cole, J.
vs. Bowman, M.J.
STATE OF OHIO,
Defendant.
NOTICE
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to this Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. That period may be extended further by the Court on timely motion by either side for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the portion(s) of the R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. A party shall respond to an opponent’s objections within FOURTEEN DAYS after being served with a copy of those objections. Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).