Billie J. Levert-Hill v. Glick Dental Assoc. Inc., et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio dismissed a pro se plaintiff’s action against a dental practice and its personnel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court concluded that the complaint failed to state a cognizable claim and did not establish federal-question or diversity jurisdiction. The court also certified that an appeal could not be taken in good faith.

Holdings

1. The complaint did not establish diversity jurisdiction because it suggested that Plaintiff and Defendants were all citizens of Ohio and did not plead facts showing complete diversity.
2. The complaint failed to identify a federal question because its allegations primarily suggested state-law tort theories and did not allege facts supporting a federal claim.
3. The action was properly dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint established federal subject matter jurisdiction through diversity of citizenship.
2. Whether the complaint identified a federal question or otherwise stated a plausible claim sufficient to survive screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
3. Whether the complaint's allegations concerning malpractice, billing negligence, emotional distress, Medicare or Medicaid status, and racial profiling stated a cognizable federal claim.

Disposition

dismissed