Frye v. Shuckra, No. 1:2014cv00309 - Document 4 (N.D. Ohio 2014)
Court Description: Memorandumn of Opinion and Order. This action is dismissed for the reasons set forth herein. 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 Christopher A. Boyko on 7/7/2014. (H,CM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Frye v. Shuckra Doc. 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO MATTHEW FRYE, JR., Plaintiff, v. CHRISTOPHER SHUCKRA, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:14 CV 309 JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER On February 13, 2014, Plaintiff pro se Matthew Frye, Jr. filed this action against Defendant Christopher Shuckra. Plaintiff, a federal inmate at the United States Penitentiary in Adelanto, California, alleges that Defendant - a Connecticut resident - did not perform any services after Plaintiff paid him $350 to assist in filing a lawsuit. Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365, (1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), a "district court may, at any time, sua sponte dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure when the allegations of a complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit or no longer open to discussion." Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir.1999). As an initial matter, this Court is not a proper venue for this action, as none of the events alleged in the Complaint occurred here and neither party is located in this District. See, 28 U.S.C § 1391(b). Further, there would be no point in transferring the case to a court where venue would Dockets.Justia.com otherwise be proper, because Plaintiff does not set forth a claim over which any federal court might have jurisdiction. That is, he does not invoke a federal statute in support of his claim, and any claim he seeks to assert based on diversity of citizenship falls well short of the $75,000.00 jurisdictional required under 28 U.S.C § 1332(a). 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. s/ Christopher A. Boyko CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DATED: July 7, 2014 -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.
