1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

DANIEL HELLMUTH, Case No. 1:18-cv-397 

Plaintiff, 

 Barrett, J. 

vs. Bowman, M.J. 

 

LEANNE HOOD, et. al. 

 Defendants. 

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

Plaintiff brings this pro se action against Lynn Busch-Hayman, Jamy Chaney, 

Chelsey Holland, Leanne Hood, Rodney Mutterspaw, Arthur Scott, James C. Smith esq., 

Unknown Middletown Police Officer, Unknown Trenton Police Officer(s) for violations of 

42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1st, 4th, and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States 

of America.” (Doc. 8).1 For the reasons that follow, the undersigned finds that the court 

lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. 

A district court may, at any time, sua sponte dismiss a complaint for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when 

the allegations of a complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, 

devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion. Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th 

Cir. 1999). See also Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536–37, 94 S.Ct. 1372, 39 L.Ed.2d 

577 (1974) (citing numerous Supreme Court cases for the proposition that patently 

frivolous, attenuated, or unsubstantial claims divest the district court of jurisdiction, but 

ultimately finding the plaintiffs' claims raised under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 

 

1 Plaintiff filed a “Statement of Claim: on June 21, 2018. (Doc.8). 

Case: 1:18-cv-00397-MRB-SKB Doc #: 16 Filed: 06/26/18 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: 62
2 

1343(3) formally alleged a deprivation of constitutional rights and thus were not 

unsubstantial or wholly frivolous); In re Bendectin Litig., 857 F.2d 290, 300 (6th Cir.1988) 

(recognizing that federal question jurisdiction is divested by obviously frivolous and 

unsubstantial claims, but then allowing an arguably plausible claim to proceed). Tingler's 

requirement that a plaintiff be given the opportunity to amend does not apply to sua 

sponte dismissals for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Hagans. See Tingler, 716 F.2d at 

1111. 

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, 

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-harmedCase: 1:18-cv-00397-MRB-SKB Doc #: 16 Filed: 06/26/18 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: 63
3 

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 complaint purports to bring claims under section 1983 of the civil 

rights act. However, upon close inspection, Plaintiff’s complaint involves a civil dispute 

between his daughter over the ownership of his former residence and return of personal 

property from that residence. (See Doc. 1). Notably, Plaintiff’s daughter arranged for 

police officers to be present on at least two occasions while the Plaintiff came to the 

residence to gather some personal property. 

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 18, 2018. (Doc. 4). The amended 

complaint however, only appears to include additional factual allegations relating to the 

incidents in question. The amended complaint does not appear to include any additional 

claims and does not include a prayer for relief. This matter appears to be a domestic 

dispute of sorts that is currently part of a pending case in state court. 

 As such, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims because 

they fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the state courts. Namely, Plaintiff’s initial 

complaint and/or his amended complaint do not assert any claims arising under federal 

law or include sufficient allegations to establish diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff's conclusory references to violations of his civil rights are not sufficient-even if 

they did not merit dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)-to grant federal jurisdiction. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00397-MRB-SKB Doc #: 16 Filed: 06/26/18 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: 64
4 

Accordingly, for these reasons, it is therefore RECOMMENDED this action be 

DISMISSED with PREJUDICE 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 

Case: 1:18-cv-00397-MRB-SKB Doc #: 16 Filed: 06/26/18 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: 65
5 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

DANIEL HELLMUTH, Case No. 1:18-cv-397 

Plaintiff, 

 Barrett, J. 

vs. Bowman, M.J. 

 

LEANNE HOOD, et. al. 

 Defendants. 

 

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). 

 

Case: 1:18-cv-00397-MRB-SKB Doc #: 16 Filed: 06/26/18 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: 66