Chrysanthus v. Shaffer

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
PHILIP CHRYSANTHUS, 	CASE NO. 3:25 CV 2347
Plaintiff,
v. 	JUDGE JAMES R. KNEPP II
MICHAEL SHAFFER,
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Defendant. 	ORDER
I NTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Philip Chrysanthus filed this action pro se against his landlord, Michael Shaffer.
(Doc. 1). Plaintiff’s Complaint is difficult to decipher. He appears to have objections related to
office space that he is leasing. He does not assert legal claims and does not indicate the relief he
seeks. Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). That Motion is granted,
but upon review, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The Court
further dismisses Defendant Michael Shaffer’s Third-Party Complaint and Counterclaim (Doc. 7)
for lack of jurisdiction and therefore denies Defendant’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc.
8) as moot.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff states that in August 2025, Defendant presented a Commercial Lease Agreement
indicating his building was for commercial use; Plaintiff signed it. (Doc. 1, at 1). Plaintiff claims
it is an office building in which multiple businesses rent space, including a church. Id. at 1-2. He
Case: 3:25-cv-02347-JRK Doc #: 11 Filed: 12/29/25 1 of 5. PageID #: <pageID>

2
objects to the characterization of the building as commercial when it has offices in it. Id. at 1.
Plaintiff further asserts he found multiple building code defects and numerous safety problems,
but Defendant would not allow Plaintiff to do work on the building. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff told
Defendant the heat does not work properly. Id. at 1. He states Defendant demonstrated how to use
the thermostat and insisted the system was in safe operational condition. Id. at 2. He claims an
HVAC contractor told him the Heat and Air Conditioning unit was defective. Id. Plaintiff alleges
it poses a risk of emitting carbon monoxide. Id. Plaintiff claims the church operating in the building
ignores safety issues, despite these issues posing a risk to children. Id. He indicates he is pursuing
“Superintendent status in an effort to establish an escrow account with Wood County for the
purpose of paying for building occupancy by Philip Chrysanthus enabling him to address safety
concerns and building updates as a reasonable option to properly maintain building.” Id.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365
(1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the Court is required to dismiss
an in forma pauperis action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) if it fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted or lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989);
Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact
when it is premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory or when the factual contentions are
clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.
A cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it lacks
“plausibility in [the] complaint.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 564 (2007). A pleading
must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Case: 3:25-cv-02347-JRK Doc #: 11 Filed: 12/29/25 2 of 5. PageID #: <pageID>

3
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). Accepted as true,
the factual allegations in the pleading must be sufficient to raise the right to relief above the
speculative level. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 555. The plaintiff is not required to include detailed
factual allegations, but must provide more than “an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-
me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pleading that offers legal conclusions or a simple
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not meet this pleading standard. Id. In reviewing
a complaint, the Court must construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Bibbo
v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 151 F.3d 559, 561 (6th Cir. 1998).
DISCUSSION
Federal Civil Rule 8 requires a Plaintiff to submit a short, plain and concise statement of
his claims and relief. To meet the minimum notice pleading requirements of Rule 8, the complaint
must give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s legal claims are and the factual grounds
upon which they rest. Bassett v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 528 F.3d 426, 437 (6th Cir. 2008).
Plaintiff’s Complaint does not contain any suggestion of the legal claims he intends to assert, or
the relief he seeks from the Court. Without this information, Plaintiff fails to meet the minimum
pleading requirements of Rule 8. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
Moreover, the Complaint appears, even when construed liberally in favor of Plaintiff, to
present a landlord tenant dispute. Such disputes are governed solely by state law and this Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction where the parties are not diverse. See, e.g., Westfield Club v.
Dominique, 2007 WL 2904051, at *4 (W.D. Mich.) (“Landlord-tenant disputes and eviction
actions are typically state law claims.”). Plaintiff does not invoke this Court’s diversity jurisdiction
and fails to allege the citizenship of either party.
Case: 3:25-cv-02347-JRK Doc #: 11 Filed: 12/29/25 3 of 5. PageID #: <pageID>

4
As the Complaint presents no federal claim nor diversity of parties, Plaintiff fails to
establish a basis for the exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction.
Defendant also filed a Third-Party Complaint and Counterclaim. (Doc. 7, at 3-6). It asserts
only supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 as the basis for federal jurisdiction.
Because, as set forth above, the Court finds Plaintiff has not established a basis for federal
jurisdiction, the Court also lacks jurisdiction over Defendant’s state law counterclaims. See NOCO
Co. v. OJ Com., LLC, 35 F.4th 475, 480-81 (6th Cir. 2022).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, good cause appearing, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) be, and the
same hereby is, GRANTED; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that this action be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s additional Motions (Docs. 3, 6) be, and the same
hereby are, DENIED as moot; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Third-Party Complaint and Counterclaim (Doc.
7) be, and the same hereby is DISMISSED; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 8) be,
and the same hereby is DENIED as moot; and the Court
FURTHER CERTIFIES, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this
decision could not be taken in good faith.
Case: 3:25-cv-02347-JRK Doc #: 11 Filed: 12/29/25 4 of 5. PageID #: <pageID>

5
s/ James R. Knepp II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: December 29, 2025
Case: 3:25-cv-02347-JRK Doc #: 11 Filed: 12/29/25 5 of 5. PageID #: <pageID>