Hosseinipour v. Neuhauser, et al.

PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
AHMAD HOSSEINIPOUR,
Plaintiff,
v.
ATTORNEY ANDREW NEUHAUSER, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE No. 5:25-cv-1888
JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER
I. Background
Plaintiff Ahamd Hosseinipour, proceeding pro se, filed an in forma pauperis civil
complaint against Defendants Andrew Neuhauser and Luis Myrie, seeking $6,000 in relief. ECF
No. 1. Plaintiff’s brief complaint alleges that Defendants violated unspecified “federal
government law,” apparently on the basis that Defendant Neuhauser is a legal aid attorney
representing Luis Myrie in a case against Plaintiff in the Mahoning County Court of Common
Pleas. ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 4, ¶ III; ECF No. 1-1. Plaintiff states that a “community legal
aid’s attorney cannot have a private client.” ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 3, ¶ II.B.
Defendant Neuhauser filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1)
and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 4. He argues that the Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction and that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which the Court may
grant him relief because: (1) Plaintiff fails to set forth any specific federal claim for relief in his
complaint; and (2) the abstention doctrine precludes federal courts from exercising jurisdiction
over ongoing state-court litigation.
Case: 5:25-cv-01888-BYP Doc #: 9 Filed: 01/02/26 1 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

Plaintiff has not filed a brief addressing the specific arguments made in Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss, or demonstrating that he alleges a federal claim over which the Court may
exercise subject-matter jurisdiction. Instead, he has filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel
(ECF No. 8) and other unclear filings reiterating his contention that Defendant Neuhauser
unlawfully represents Mr. Myrie in a Mahoning County case. See ECF No. 6.
II. Standard of Review and Discussion
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and, even without a motion to dismiss,
“have a duty to consider their subject matter jurisdiction in regard to every case and may raise
the issue sua sponte.” Answers in Genesis of Ky., Inc. v. Creation Ministries Int’l, Ltd., 556 F.3d
459, 465 (6th Cir. 2009). “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
There are two basic categories of cases over which federal courts have subject-matter
jurisdiction. First, a federal court has federal question jurisdiction, which is jurisdiction over
cases that “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §
1331. Federal question jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face
of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint. Mich. South. R.R. Co. v. Branch & St. Joseph Counties
Rail Users Ass’n, Inc., 287 F.3d 568, 573 (6th Cir. 2002). Second, a federal court has
“diversity” jurisdiction, which is jurisdiction over cases “where the matter in controversy
exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 . . . and is between . . . citizens of different states.” 28
U.S.C. § 1332.
A plaintiff bears the burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction. Lujan v.
2
Case: 5:25-cv-01888-BYP Doc #: 9 Filed: 01/02/26 2 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992).
The Court finds Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction. First, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a valid basis for an exercise of federal
question jurisdiction. Neither the face of Plaintiff’s complaint, nor any of his subsequent filings,
identifies or refers to any specific provision of the United States Constitution or other federal law
or statute that provides a basis for his lawsuit. Plaintiff’s unclear and conclusory assertion in his
complaint that Defendants have violated “federal government law” is insufficient to demonstrate
that he alleges a claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
Second, Plaintiff’s pleadings do not establish a basis for the Court to exercise diversity
jurisdiction. The face of Plaintiff’s complaint indicates that he and Defendants are all citizens
of the same state (Ohio). Additionally, he seeks $6000 in damages, which is less than the
threshold jurisdictional amount-in-controversy requirement ($75,000) necessary for an exercise
of diversity jurisdiction.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, in that Plaintiff has demonstrated no valid basis of an exercise of federal
subject-matter jurisdiction in this case, the action is hereby dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(h)(3). Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 8) is denied as moot. 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 2, 2026
Date
/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
3
Case: 5:25-cv-01888-BYP Doc #: 9 Filed: 01/02/26 3 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>