Grimm v. Lampp, No. 1:2009cv02745 - Document 3 (N.D. Ohio 2009)

Court Description: Memorandum Of Opinion and Order. There is no basis for subject matter jurisdiction in this Court. Lampp's alleged actions were not, by their very nature, taken under "color of state law" for purposes of a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Accordingly, this action is dismissed. Judge Christopher A. Boyko on 12/18/09. (M,M)

Download PDF
Grimm v. Lampp Doc. 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ROBERT GRIMM, Plaintiff, v. BEVERLY LAMPP, aka BEVERLY GRIMM, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:09 CV 2745 JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER On November 23, 2009, plaintiff pro se Robert Grim filed this action against his former spouse, Beverly Lampp. The complaint states the parties were divorced in Connecticut, and that an order for lump sum alimony and attorney fees was issued by a Connecticut court in 2006. It is further alleged that the Connecticut court ordered Lampp to transfer title of a house in Highland Heights, Ohio. At some point, Lampp filed an action in the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court seeking interest on monies claimed she was owed by Grimm based on a 2003 Connecticut court order. Grimm claims Lampp and her attorney knew that the interest claim lacked merit. Plaintiff asserts this court has jurisdiction “over a violation of my Constitutional Rights, Article IV, § 1, and USC title 28 section 1738.” Dockets.Justia.com There is no basis for subject matter jurisdiction in this court. Lampp’s alleged actions were not, by their very nature, taken under “color of state law” for purposes of a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Further, 28 U.S.C. § 1738 does not confer federal jurisdiction over state court matters, and federal courts simply do not have jurisdiction over essentially domestic relations disputes. McLaughlin v. Cotner, 193 F.3d 410, 412 (6th Cir. 1999) Accordingly, this action is dismissed. IT IS SO ORDERED. S/Christopher A. Boyko CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE December 18, 2009 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.