Anderson, M.D. v. State Of Ohio et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
WILFRED L. ANDERSON, M.D.,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF OHIO, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action 2:25-cv-1325
Judge Michael H. Watson
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura
ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, Wilfred L. Anderson, M.D., an Ohio resident proceeding without the assistance
of counsel, sues the State of Ohio and the Ohio State Medical Board under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
enforcing an allegedly void ab initio 1997 state-court conviction. Plaintiff has submitted a
request to file a civil action in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 1.) The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s
request to proceed in forma pauperis. All judicial officers who render services in this action shall
do so as if the costs had been prepaid. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
This matter is also before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion by Pro Se Litigant to Obtain
Electronic Case Filing Rights (ECF No. 2). For good cause shown, the Motion (ECF No. 2) is
GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiff may participate in e-filing only as to this particular case
and conditional on his compliance with all applicable e-filing requirements. If he has not already
done so, Plaintiff is DIRECTED to create a PACER account, and then complete the electronic
filing registration for the Southern District of Ohio, as explained at
https://pacer.uscourts.gov/register-account/non-attorney-filers-cmecf.
Case: 2:25-cv-01325-ALM-EPD Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/08/25 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
Plaintiff is REMINDED that failure to adhere to all applicable e-filing requirements will
likely result in the revocation of permission to participate in e-filing. Plaintiff is specifically
CAUTIONED that failure to update his email address and monitor his email account (including
his “junk mail” or spam folder) for court filings may result in the Court’s dismissal of the action.
Cf. Yeschick v. Mineta, 675 F.3d 622, 630 (6th Cir. 2012) (affirming district court’s denial of
motion for relief from judgment where counsel’s neglect in failing to check docket until more
than a month after he learned that he was not receiving notice of electronic filings because he
failed to update his email address on file with the district court); Equal Emp’t Opportunity
Comm’n v. Indi’s Fast Food Rest., Inc., No. 3:15-cv-00590, 2016 WL 7473130, at *6 (W.D. Ky.
Dec. 28, 2016) (noting that defense counsel represented that “he did not receive any Court-
related notices or emails because they were all sent to his ‘junk mail’ folder” and finding that
“[d]efense counsel’s non-receipt of emails does not relieve his responsibility to monitor the
Court’s docket and keep apprised of developments within his active cases, which he failed to do
here”). Plaintiff is further CAUTIONED that his electronic filing access may be revoked at any
time.
This matter is also before the Court for the initial screen of Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF
No. 1-1) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 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). Having performed the initial screen, for the reasons
below, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court DISMISS this action under
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Case: 2:25-cv-01325-ALM-EPD Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/08/25 Page: 2 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
I. 	STANDARD OF REVIEW
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. In this case, however, upon review of Plaintiff’s Complaint, the undersigned
determines that it is unnecessary to consider the merits of some 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 Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 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 in 1997, he was convicted of a misdemeanor offense in the Court of
Common Pleas for Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Plaintiff further alleges that this conviction was
“jurisdictionally void ab initio because the mandatory two-year statute of limitations (SOL) had
expired well before the commencement of prosecution.” (Compl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 1-1.) The
conviction led to the permanent revocation of Plaintiff’s medical license. Plaintiff alleges he
suffered catastrophic personal and financial harm, which was compounded by the state courts’
arbitrary refusal to recognize and correct the void judgment. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief against the State of Ohio and the Ohio State Medical Board.
Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The Eleventh
Amendment operates as a bar to federal-court jurisdiction when a private citizen sues a state or
its instrumentalities unless the state has given express consent. Pennhurst St. Sch. & Hosp. v.
Case: 2:25-cv-01325-ALM-EPD Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/08/25 Page: 3 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1983); Lawson v. Shelby Cty., 211 F.3d 331, 334 (6th Cir. 2000).
“There are three exceptions to sovereign immunity: (1) when the state has waived immunity by
consenting to the suit, (2) when Congress has expressly abrogated the states’ sovereign
immunity, and (3) when the doctrine set forth in Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52
L.Ed. 714 (1908), applies.” Boler v. Earley, 865 F.3d 391, 410 (6th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted).
None of these exceptions apply to Plaintiff’s Complaint. First, “Ohio has not waived sovereign
immunity in federal court.” Mixon v. State of Ohio, 193 F.3d 389, 397 (6th Cir. 1999). Second,
“Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity.” Boler, 865 F.3d at 410 (citing
Will, 491 U.S. at 66). Third, the Ex Parte Young doctrine applies only when a plaintiff brings
“claims for prospective relief against state officials sued in their official capacity to prevent
future federal constitutional or statutory violations.” Boler, 865 F.3d at 412. But Plaintiff sues
only the State of Ohio and the Ohio State Medical Board, not any state officials. Accordingly, no
exception to sovereign immunity applies and Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed.
Even if Plaintiff were to amend his Complaint to sue a state official in his or her official
capacity for prospective relief, thus triggering the Ex Parte Young exception to sovereign
immunity, Plaintiff’s claims would still be barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Rooker v.
Fidelity Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415–16 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.
Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983). “The Rooker-Feldman doctrine embodies the notion that
appellate review of state-court decisions and the validity of state judicial proceedings is limited
to the Supreme Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1257, and thus that federal district courts lack
jurisdiction to review such matters.” In re Cook, 551 F.3d 542, 548 (6th Cir. 2009). The Rooker-
Feldman doctrine applies to cases “brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused
by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting
Case: 2:25-cv-01325-ALM-EPD Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/08/25 Page: 4 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>

5
district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Ind.
Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). “The pertinent question in determining whether a federal
district court is precluded under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine from exercising subject-matter
jurisdiction over a claim is whether the source of the injury upon which plaintiff bases his federal
claim is the state court judgment.” In re Cook, 551 F.3d at 548 (cleaned up). Because Plaintiff’s
injury stems from the entry of his misdemeanor conviction, which was entered by a state court,
this Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief.
The undersigned is not persuaded by Plaintiff’s argument that Rooker-Feldman does not
apply because “the judgment was procured by governmental fraud upon the court and resulting
constitutional rights violations.” (Compl. ¶ 17, ECF No. 1-1) (citing In re Sun Valley Foods Co.,
801 F.2d 186, 189 (6th Cir. 1986). Plaintiff is correct that the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit has held that “a federal court ‘may entertain a collateral attack on a state court
judgment which is alleged to have been procured through fraud, deception, accident, or
mistake.’” Sun Valley Foods, 801 F.2d at 189 (6th Cir.1986) (quoting Resolute Ins. Co. v. North
Carolina, 397 F.2d 586, 589 (4th Cir.1968)). However, this exception requires a finding that “the
state-court winner deceived the Court into a wrong decree.” Int’l Christian Music Ministry Inc. v.
Ocwen Fed. Bank, FSB, 289 F. App’x 63, 65 (6th Cir. 2008) (cleaned up) (citing Sun Valley
Foods at 189). Here, Plaintiff alleges that a non-party investigator of the Ohio State Medical
Board failed to disclose a serious conflict of interest until after her investigation of Plaintiff’s
alleged misconduct. But Plaintiff also alleges that this conflict of interest was eventually
disclosed, that the Medical Board’s hearing examiner concluded that the investigator’s
misconduct “had no bearing on the case,” and that this conclusion “was part of the record during
the subsequent 1998 Common Pleas Appeal.” (Compl. ¶¶ 26–36, ECF No. 1-1.) Thus, Plaintiff
Case: 2:25-cv-01325-ALM-EPD Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/08/25 Page: 5 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>

6
already attempted to appeal his conviction in state court, the state court was aware of the conflict
of interest by the investigator, and the state court nevertheless declined to overturn Plaintiff’s
conviction. It therefore cannot be said that “the state-court winner deceived the Court into a
wrong decree” as required to invoke the Sun Valley Foods exception to the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine.
III. 	DISPOSITION
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s Motion by Pro Se Litigant to Obtain Electronic Case Filing Rights (ECF No. 2) is
GRANTED. For the reasons above, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court DISMISS
this action under § 1915(e)(2)(B) for lack of subject-matter 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
Case: 2:25-cv-01325-ALM-EPD Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/08/25 Page: 6 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>

7
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
Case: 2:25-cv-01325-ALM-EPD Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/08/25 Page: 7 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>