Lee v. Brock

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
ANTOINE LEE, 	Case No. 1:25-cv-767
Plaintiff,
Cole, J.
vs. 	Bowman, M.J.
DUSTIN BROCK,
Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, a resident of Cincinnati, brings this action against Dustin Brock. By separate
Order issued this date, plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 	This matter is before the Court for a sua sponte review of
plaintiff’s complaint to determine whether the complaint, or any portion of it, should be
dismissed because it 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)(B).
In enacting the original in forma pauperis statute, Congress recognized that a “litigant
whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks
an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.”
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
324 (1989)). To prevent such abusive litigation, Congress has authorized federal courts to
dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint if they are satisfied that the action is frivolous or
malicious. 	Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 	A complaint may be dismissed as
frivolous when the plaintiff cannot make any claim with a rational or arguable basis in fact or
Case: 1:25-cv-00767-DRC-SKB Doc #: 6 Filed: 11/24/25 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
law. 	Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328-29 (1989); see also Lawler v. Marshall, 898
F.2d 1196, 1198 (6th Cir. 1990). An action has no arguable legal basis when the defendant
is immune from suit or when plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest which clearly does
not exist. 	Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. 	An action has no arguable factual basis when the
allegations are delusional or rise to the level of the irrational or “wholly incredible.” Denton,
504 U.S. at 32; Lawler, 898 F.2d at 1199. 	The Court need not accept as true factual
allegations that are fantastic or delusional in reviewing a complaint for frivolousness. Hill v.
Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 471 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328).
Congress also has authorized the sua sponte dismissal of complaints that fail to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii). 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
Case: 1:25-cv-00767-DRC-SKB Doc #: 6 Filed: 11/24/25 Page: 2 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). Although a complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,”
it must provide “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-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’s complaint alleges that 	she is a 47-year-old African American
transgender woman and recovering addict. The complaint alleges that Defendant was the
house manager at We Care sober living house. 	Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that she was
kicked out of the sober living house due to discrimination because she was transgender. For
relief, Plaintiff seeks $15,000.00 from Brock and for Brock “not to be allowed to work for no
sober living house no where.” (Doc. 1 at 4). Upon careful review, the undersigned finds that
Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to state a claim with an arguable basis in law over which
this federal Court has subject matter jurisdiction
To the extent plaintiff seeks to invoke the diversity jurisdiction of the Court under 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a), the complaint reveals such jurisdiction is lacking. A district court has
jurisdiction over a suit between citizens of different states when the amount in controversy
“exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Plaintiff’s prayer for relief seeks $15,000.00 in damages. The complaint fails to allege
plaintiff’s claims satisfy the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement for this Court’s
exercise of diversity jurisdiction. In addition, in order for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to §
Case: 1:25-cv-00767-DRC-SKB Doc #: 6 Filed: 11/24/25 Page: 3 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
1332(a) to lie, the citizenship of the plaintiff must be “diverse from the citizenship of each
defendant” thereby ensuring “complete diversity.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68
(1996) (citing State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Tashire, 386 U.S. 523, 531 (1967)); see also
Napletana v. Hillsdale College, 385 F.2d 871, 872 (6th Cir. 1967); Winningham v. North
American Res. Corp., 809 F. Supp. 546, 551 (S.D. Ohio 1992). In this case, the complaint
indicates that plaintiff and the defendant both are citizens of Ohio. Therefore, the complaint
does not allege that the citizenship of plaintiff and the defendant is diverse. 28 U.S.C. §
1332(1). This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of citizenship
over any state law claims plaintiff may be alleging.
In addition, the Court is without federal question jurisdiction over the complaint.
District courts also have original federal question jurisdiction over cases “arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In order to invoke the
Court’s federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, plaintiff must allege facts
showing the cause of action involves an issue of federal law. See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v.
Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987). The undersigned is unable to discern from the facts alleged
in the complaint any federal statutory or constitutional provision that applies to give rise to
an actionable claim for relief. To the extent Plaintiff is alleging a civil rights violation,
Defendant Brock is not a state actor and therefore is not subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Moreover, Plaintiff asserts in her complaint that she is bringing this claim under
“section 4112.02” which the court assumes is a reference to Ohio Revised Code Section
4112.02 for unlawful discriminatory practices. As such, the complaint should be dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.
Case: 1:25-cv-00767-DRC-SKB Doc #: 6 Filed: 11/24/25 Page: 4 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

5
Accordingly, in sum, the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) because plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
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. Plaintiff remains free to apply to
proceed in forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals. See Callihan v. Schneider, 178 F.3d 800,
803 (6th Cir. 1999), overruling in part Floyd v. United States Postal Serv., 105 F.3d 274, 277
(6th Cir. 1997).
s/Stephanie K. Bowman
Stephanie K. Bowman
United States Chief Magistrate Judge
Case: 1:25-cv-00767-DRC-SKB Doc #: 6 Filed: 11/24/25 Page: 5 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
ANTOINE LEE, 	Case No. 1:25-cv-767
Plaintiff,
Cole, J.
vs. 	Bowman, M.J.
DUSTIN BROCK,
Defendant.
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: 1:25-cv-00767-DRC-SKB Doc #: 6 Filed: 11/24/25 Page: 6 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>