Turner v. Dimon et al, No. 4:2016cv00609 - Document 3 (N.D. Ohio 2016)

Court Description: Memorandum of Opinion and Order Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2 , is granted and, for the reasons set forth herein, this action is dismissed. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 5/31/2016. (JLG)

Download PDF
Turner v. Dimon et al Doc. 3 PEARSON, J. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION VERNON LAMONT TURNER, Plaintiff, v. JAMIE DIMON, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 4:16cv609 JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER [Resolving ECF No. 2] Pro se Plaintiff Vernon Turner brings this action against the following JP Morgan Chase Bank officers and employees: Jamie Dimon, Marianne Lake, William Scudder, Tasha Crohurst, Taylor Kimmins, and Garen C. Britt. ECF No. 1. The Complaint is difficult to understand, containing barely intelligible fact allegations and legal claims. It appears, however, that Plaintiff is challenging the enforceability of a promissory note and a security agreement concerning a Cadillac Escalade he purchased. E.g., ECF No. 1-1 at PageID #: 18. Plaintiff has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. Plaintiff’s motion is granted, but for the reasons that follow, the action is dismissed. Even when the complaint is liberally construed, it does not reflect a plausible basis on which this Court might exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim. This case is, therefore, subject to summary dismissal. Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999); Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536–37 (1974) (citing numerous Supreme Court cases for the proposition that attenuated or unsubstantial claims divest the district court of jurisdiction); In re Bendectin Dockets.Justia.com (4:16cv609) Litig., 857 F.2d 290, 300 (6th Cir.1988) (recognizing that federal question jurisdiction is divested by unsubstantial claims). Accordingly, this action is dismissed. The Court 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. May 31, 2016 Date /s/ Benita Y. Pearson Benita Y. Pearson United States District Judge 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.