Cochran v. State of Ohio et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICTOF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
GLENN COCHRAN,
Petitioner,
V.
STATE OF OHIO, et al.,
Respondents.
CaseNo. 3:25-cv-124
JUDGE WALTER H. RICE
DECISION AND ENTRY SUSTAINING RESPONDENT JOHN
MCMANUS, MONTGOMERY COUNTY TREASURER'S MOTION TO
DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. #19)
This matter comes before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss filed by
Respondent John McManus, Montgomery County Treasurer ("the County"). Doc.
#19. Petitioner Glenn Cochran ("Petitioner") filed a response in opposition, Doc.
#23, and the County filed a reply in support of its motion. Doc. #24.
For the reasons stated herein, the Court SUSTAINS Respondent John
McManus, Montgomery County Treasurer's Motion to Dismiss Amended
Complaint. Doc. #19.
I. Procedural and Factual Background
In January 2024, the County sold Tax Certificate Nos. 2024-0000000002 and
2024-0000002780 pursuant to Ohio Revised Code (R. C. ) §5721. 33. These tax
Case: 3:25-cv-00124-WHR-PBS Doc #: 25 Filed: 11/21/25 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

certificates created first priority liens for the amount of taxes and other fees owed
to the County for the property located at 4236 Merrimac Avenue, Dayton, Ohio
45405. Petitioner, who resides at the Merrimac Avenue address, failed to redeem
the tax certificates and a complaint for foreclosure was filed with the Montgomery
County Court of Common Pleas on April 8, 2025.
On April 24, 2025, Petitioner filed this case, seeking the issuance of a writ of
quo warranto. In his view, several treaties signed by the United States in the 1700s
and 1800s prevent the County from exercising jurisdiction over him. The County
filed a Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on June
26, 2025, alleging that Petitioner had failed to state a claim upon which relief could
be granted.
II. Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows a party to move for dismissal
of a complaint on the basis that it "fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. " The moving party "has the burden of showing that the [opposing party]
has failed to adequately state a claim for relief. " DirecTV, Inc. v. Treesh, 487 F. 3d
471, 476 (6th Cir. 2007), citing Carver v. Bunch, 946 F. 2d 451, 454-55 (6th Cir. 1991).
The purpose of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss "is to allow a defendant to test
whether, as a matter of law, the plaintiff is entitled to legal relief even if everything
alleged in the complaint is true. " Mayer v. Mylod, 988 F. 2d 635, 638 (6th Cir. 1993).
2
Case: 3:25-cv-00124-WHR-PBS Doc #: 25 Filed: 11/21/25 Page: 2 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

In ruling on the motion, the Court must "construe the complaint in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff, accept its [well-pleaded] allegations as true, and draw all
reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. " Treesh, 487 F. 3d at 476.
Nevertheless, to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the complaint
must contain "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."
Twombly, 550 U. S. at 570. Unless the facts alleged show that the plaintiff's claim
crosses "the line from conceivable to plausible, [the] complaint must be
dismissed. " Id. Although this standard does not require "detailed factual
allegations, " it does require more than "labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. " Id. at 555. "Rule 8 . . .
does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than
conclusions. " Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U. S. 662, 678-79 (2009). Legal conclusions
"must be supported by well-pleaded factual allegations" that "plausibly give rise
to an entitlement of relief. " Id. at 679.
To survive to the discovery phase, a plaintiff need only establish that the
pleadings be plausible, not probable. Watson Carpet & Floor Covering, Inc. v.
Mohawk Indus., Inc., 648 F. 3d 452, 458 (6th Cir. 2011). "Ferreting out the most likely
reason for the defendants' actions is not appropriate at the pleadings stage. " Id.
Case: 3:25-cv-00124-WHR-PBS Doc #: 25 Filed: 11/21/25 Page: 3 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

III. Analysis
Without examining the merits of Petitioner's claims, there are significant
procedural issues requiring dismissal of this case. "Historically, the federal
common law remedy of quo warranto has been available only in connection with
proceedings over an individual's right to hold an office or position. "1 Smith v.
Dearborn Fin. Servs., Inc., 982 F. 2d 976, 981 (6th Cir. 1993). Quo warranto actions
against state officers, like the County here, are guided by state statutes. State of
Tenn., by Wolfenbarger ex rel. Atchley v. Taylor, 169 F. 2d 626, 631 (6th Cir. 1948).
Ohio law lays out only a few scenarios in which quo warranto actions may
be brought. Under R. C. §2733. 01, a quo warranto action "may be brought in the
name of the state" against certain persons. Similarly, R. C. §2733. 02 permits a quo
warranto action "brought in the name of the state" to be filed against certain
corporations. In fact, there is only one situation where a private individual \r\a\/ file
a quo warranto action: "A person claiming to be entitled to a public office unlawfully
held and exercised by another may bring an action therefor by himself or an
attorney at law, upon giving security for costs. " R. C. §2733. 06.
1 Notably, Petitioner does not challenge John McManus's right to hold the office of
Montgomery County Treasurer, only the authority of the Montgomery County Treasurer to
exert jurisdiction over his property.
4
Case: 3:25-cv-00124-WHR-PBS Doc #: 25 Filed: 11/21/25 Page: 4 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

Petitioner has not brought his quo warranto action in the name of the state,
as he is not the Ohio Attorney General or an Ohio prosecuting attorney. See R. C.
§2733. 04. Likewise, he also has not met the requirements to qualify under §2733. 06
as he is not claiming that he is entitled to any public office, nor has he given security
before bringing his claims.
Respondent admits as much in his response:
Petitioner did not file a standard quo warranto based on ORC
2733. 01(A) "[... } usurpation of a office created under the authority of
the state [... ]. " Petitioner did not file a standard quo warranto based
on ORC 2733. 06 "{... } person claiming to be entitled to a public (elected
or appointed officer, employee, or agent of the state) office [... ]'
Petitioner did not file a standard quo warranto based on being a
resident or citizen of Ohio and is not seeking an injunction against a
foreclosure as Respondent cited United States v. Billheimer, but is
seeking an answer from the Respondent by what authority does he
have pursuant treaties to act in the stead of a Moorish Consul,
Moor/lndian Deputy, a British Consul and/or a High Contracting Party
of the Treaties stated in lines 73-83 of the complaint. Petitioner is
seeking an answer from Respondent by what authority does he have
to sell an interest in property that is protected by treaties of the United
States. Petitioner filed a quo warranto based on officers described in a
treaty agreement which the above state statues are silent on.
Doc. #23, PagelD #257 (brackets in original). From Petitioner's statement, it appears
he understands that he cannot meet the burden to present a case as a writ of quo
warranto and instead is merely "seeking an answer" to practices that he believes
are impermissible. This is insufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Therefore, Petitioner's Amended Complaint must be dismissed under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Case: 3:25-cv-00124-WHR-PBS Doc #: 25 Filed: 11/21/25 Page: 5 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reason, the Court SUSTAINS Respondent John McManus,
Montgomery County Treasurer's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint. Doc. #19.
The Amended Complaint, Doc. #11, is DISMISSED as to Defendant McManus.
Respondent State of Ohio is directed to respond to Petitioner's Amended
Complaint, Doc. #11, within 21 days of the issuance of this Decision.
Date: November 21, 2025 <-a^' Hi
WALTER H. RICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 3:25-cv-00124-WHR-PBS Doc #: 25 Filed: 11/21/25 Page: 6 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>