IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Cardional Anna Vines Carter, :

Plaintiff, :

v. : Case No. 2:12-cv-1152

 : JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY

Riverside Methodist Hospital, Magistrate Judge Kemp

et al., :

 

Defendants. : 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, Cardional Anna Vines Carter, a non-prisoner pro

se litigant, filed this action asking for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis. Ms. Carter qualifies financially for in forma

pauperis status, so her motion for leave to proceed (Doc. 1) is

granted. However, the Court will recommend that the complaint be

dismissed as frivolous.

I.

28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2) provides that in proceedings in forma

pauperis, “[t]he court shall dismiss the case if ... (B) the

action ... is frivolous or malicious [or] fails to state a claim

on which relief can be granted....” The purpose of this section

is to prevent suits which are a waste of judicial resources and

which a paying litigant would not initiate because of the costs

involved. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989). A

complaint may be dismissed as frivolous only when the plaintiff

fails to present a claim with an arguable or rational basis in

law or fact. See id. at 325. Claims which lack such a basis

include those for which the defendants are clearly entitled to

immunity and claims of infringement of a legal interest which

does not exist, see id. at 327-28, and “claims describing

fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims with which federal

Case: 2:12-cv-01152-ALM-TPK Doc #: 4 Filed: 12/19/12 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
district judges are all too familiar.” Id. at 328; see also

Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992). A complaint may not be

dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted if the complaint contains “enough facts to state a claim

to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Pro se complaints are to be

construed liberally in favor of the pro se party. See Haines v.

Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). The Court is required to review Ms.

Carter’s complaint under these standards.

II.

Ms. Carter’s complaint, like the one which she filed against

this same defendant in Case No. 2:12-cv-914, appears to relate to

something which happened while she was a patient at Riverside

Methodist Hospital, the named defendant. According to the

complaint, while Ms. Carter was at the hospital, people kept

putting something (the complaint appears to allege “sakes”

although the Court is not sure what is meant by this) on her and

her bed, and did so again when she returned to the hospital for

another night. She seeks the death penalty for “all involved”

and also eight trillion dollars in damages. 

A fundamental problem with the complaint is its failure to

address the basis of this Court’s jurisdiction. There is simply

no federal-law based claim alleged. Absent a federal claim, the

other possible basis for jurisdiction would be diversity of

citizenship. The relevant diversity jurisdiction statute, 28

U.S.C. §1332(a), says that a federal court can exercise

jurisdiction over “all civil actions where the matter in

controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of

interest and costs, and is between– (1) citizens of different

States ....” In order for a civil action to be “between ...

citizens of different states” as that phrase is used in

§1332(a)(1), all of the plaintiffs must be citizens of a state or

-2-

Case: 2:12-cv-01152-ALM-TPK Doc #: 4 Filed: 12/19/12 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
states different from the state of citizenship of any of the

defendants. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68

(1996)(“The current general-diversity statute, permitting federal

district court jurisdiction over suits for more than $50,000 [now

$75,000] ‘between ... citizens of different States,’ 28 U.S.C. §

1332(a)... applies only to cases in which the citizenship of each

plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of each defendant”). 

Riverside Methodist Hospital would appear to be a citizen of the

State of Ohio, as is Ms. Carter, so there is no diversity

jurisdiction.

In other cases filed by Ms. Carter, the Court has been very

liberal in granting her an opportunity to amend her complaint to

attempt either to state a cognizable claim or explain why the

Court has jurisdiction. She has now filed eleven cases since

August 28 of this year. Five have already been dismissed as

frivolous. Three of them have named Riverside Methodist Hospital

as a defendant. If Ms. Carter has a valid claim against that

defendant, she certainly would have been able to state it by now. 

She has not. Therefore, the Court recommends that this new case

be dismissed as frivolous, and that the Court consider whether to

impose filing restrictions on Ms. Carter for future cases.

III.

For all of these reasons, the motion for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis (#1) is granted. It is further recommended that

this case be dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2).

IV.

If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that

party may, within fourteen 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,

-3-

Case: 2:12-cv-01152-ALM-TPK Doc #: 4 Filed: 12/19/12 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
together with supporting authority for the objection(s). A 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 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).

 /s/ Terence P. Kemp 

 United States Magistrate Judge

-4-

Case: 2:12-cv-01152-ALM-TPK Doc #: 4 Filed: 12/19/12 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>