Cottrell v. Devillers, No. 20-5354, 2022 WL 2340884 (S.D. Ohio June 29, 2022) (Marbley, J.)

Cottrell v. Devillers, No. 20-5354, 2022 WL 2340884 (S.D. Ohio June 29, 2022) (Marbley, J.)

Re:  Requests for records concerning plaintiff

Disposition:  Granting defendant's motion to dismiss

• Litigation Considerations, Jurisdiction:  The court holds that "despite Defendants' insistence that Plaintiff failed to meet his pleading burden under 12(b)(1) because of a lack of specificity, this argument is better suited for a motion under 12(b)(6)."  "Indeed, Defendants appear to acknowledge this possibility because in addition to asserting this defense under 12(b)(1), they also advance this argument under 12(b)(6)."  "[D]ismissal for lack of jurisdiction does not arise based merely on a plaintiff's alleged failure to present a complaint that contains plausible allegations concerning a claim's merits prerequisites. . . ."  "Instead, that failure warrants dismissal on the grounds that the plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim."  "For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds it has subject matter jurisdiction regarding Plaintiff's claims and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(1) for a lack of specificity is denied."
   
• Litigation Considerations, Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies:  The court finds that "because '[c]ourts generally dismiss suits on prudential grounds pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim rather than Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,' this Court finds the Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust better suited for analysis under 12(b)(6)."
   
• Litigation Considerations:  The court ultimately holds that plaintiff "fail[ed] to effect proper service" and dismisses the case.