Opinion
Civil Action 6: 22-CV-228-CHB
02-13-2023
KENNETH ROSS, Plaintiff, v. SHARON ROSS, ET AL., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
CLARIA HORN BOOM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
Kenneth Ross, a resident of North Bend, Ohio, filed a pro se complaint with this Court. [R. 1]. Ross states that the primary purpose of his pleading is to clear title to certain real property located in McCreary County, Kentucky. Id. at 4. Several of the named defendants responded to Ross's complaint by moving to dismiss his pleading for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. [R. 7; R. 9]. Ross then filed multiple responses in opposition to those motions [R. 10; R. 11], and some of the defendants filed a reply brief, [R. 12]. Thus, the matter is ripe for a decision.
The Court will dismiss Ross's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This Court does not have federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Ross's complaint does not contain a federal claim against any defendant. To be sure, Ross briefly says in his complaint that “[t]his Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code” [R. 1 at 3], but this passing reference to an entire title of the United States Code certainly does not establish federal jurisdiction vis-a-vis Ross's property claim. See also Am. Fed'n of Television and Radio Artists, AFL-CIO v. WJBK-TV, 164 F.3d 1004, 1007 (6th Cir. 1999) (explaining that even a citation to a specific federal statute does not itself establish federal question jurisdiction). There is also plainly no diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because Ross's complaint alleges that he and several of the defendants are all citizens of the state of Ohio; thus, there is not complete diversity of citizenship, as required to establish subject matter jurisdiction. See Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381, 388 (1998).
In sum, because the Court does not observe a conceivable basis for jurisdiction in this case, it must dismiss. And while Ross briefly requests leave to amend his complaint, see [R. 11, p. 2], he has not filed a proposed amended complaint or otherwise articulated how his suggested amended pleading would cure the jurisdiction-related problem in this case.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. The defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction [R. 7; R. 9] are GRANTED.
2. Ross's complaint [R. 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to his right to file his complaint in a court with subject matter jurisdiction.
3. This action is STRICKEN from the Court's docket.
4. The Court will enter a corresponding Judgment.