Levert-Hill v. Glick Dental Associates, Inc. et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
BILLIE J. LEVERT-HILL, 	) 	CASE NO. 1:25-CV-02677
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	JUDGE DAVID A. RUIZ
)
v. 	)
) 	MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
GLICK DENTAL ASSOC. INC., et al., 	) 	AND ORDER
)
Defendants. 	)
Pro se Plaintiff Billie J. Levert-Hill filed this action against Glick Dental Associates, Inc.
(“Glick Dental”), Dentist Chris Gebbia, and Office Manager “Elizabeth” Doe. In the Complaint,
Plaintiff alleges she was scheduled for oral surgery and took the prescribed pre-operative
medications only to be turned away on the day of the surgery due to an insurance issue. She does
not identify any legal claims; however, she indicates that she “brings her complaint based upon
Malpractice and Financial and Emotional Distress.” (R. 1 at PageID #: 3). She also states that she
believes her treatment was due to: “(1) the fact that she was a Medicare and Medicaid recipient;
(2) racial profiling; and (3) the office’s own billing negligence with her insurance company,
Aetna.” (Id. at PageID #: 4). She seeks $ 1,000,000,000.00 in damages.
Plaintiff also filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (R. 2). That Application
is granted, but this case is dismissed for the following reasons.
Case: 1:25-cv-02677-DAR Doc #: 3 Filed: 02/10/26 1 of 7. PageID #: <pageID>

2
I. 	Background
Plaintiff alleges she was scheduled to have two surgical implants performed by one of the
dentists at Glick Dental on December 10, 2024. She contends that on December 9, 2024, she
received a call from Glick Dental Office employee, “Cathy,” instructing her to pick up
medication sent to her pharmacy and instructing her to take the medication thirty minutes prior to
her arrival on December 10. Plaintiff indicates that the medication consisted of two tablets of
Valium (10 mg each), and one Percocet.
Plaintiff claims she took the medications, and then drove from East Cleveland to Solon
for the appointment. While she was driving, she began to feel very sick and telephoned the
office. She states she spoke with Cathy who told her that if she did not show up for the
appointment, she would be charged a substantial cancellation fee.
Plaintiff indicates that upon her arrival at the office, Cathy escorted her to a procedure
room and began to administer nitrous oxide anesthesia. She contends that she was in the room
for approximately ten minutes when Office Manager, “Elizabeth” Doe, entered the room and
instructed Cathy to remove the nitrous oxide from Plaintiff’s face, stating she needed to speak
with her. Plaintiff does not provide many details about this conversation. She states only that
Elizabeth told her that she would have to leave immediately.
Plaintiff stated that she pleaded to be given time to call for a ride or to allow the effects of
the medications to wear off, but her requests were denied. She claims Elizabeth threatened to call
the police if she did not leave. She contends a man walked her to her car and insisted that she
leave the shopping center parking lot before police were called. She spoke with Dr. Gebbia on
her cellphone. She states that the doctor refused her plea to be permitted to regain her senses
from the medication and told her to leave, adding that she was not welcome back there again.
Case: 1:25-cv-02677-DAR Doc #: 3 Filed: 02/10/26 2 of 7. PageID #: <pageID>

3
She alleges that she was forced to drive home to East Cleveland while under the influence of
Valium, Percocet, and nitrous oxide. She contends she later learned that Aetna had denied the
claim “due to Defendant Glick’s office’s negligent billing practices.” (R. 1 at PageID #: 4). It is
not clear, however, if that was the reason Plaintiff was asked to leave the premises and not
return.
Plaintiff does not specify the legal claims she intends to assert in this case. She alleges
that she is basing her Complaint on “malpractice and financial and emotional distress.” (Id. at
PageID #: 3). She also speculates that her treatment was due to the fact that she is a recipient of
Medicare and Medicaid, that the Defendants engaged in racial profiling, and that Defendants
were negligent in billing her insurance company. She states generally that:
Physicians and hospitals have a duty to practice fairly, ensuring the
healthcare resources are used equitably and that care is provided
without bias based upon characteristics such as …race, gender, or
social standing. These principles require doctor’s offices and
physicians to advocate for their patient’s well-being and rights. The
Defendants 	jointly 	and 	severally 	intentionally, 	recklessly, 	or
negligently failed the Plaintiff and failed to provide adequate and
appropriate care that would be exercised by a reasonably prudent,
skilled and capable dental facility and employees under the same or
similar circumstances.
(Id. at PageID #5). She seeks monetary damages for this alleged conduct.
II. 	Legal Standard and Analysis
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), the Court is required to
dismiss an in forma pauperis action under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e) if it fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, or if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990); Sistrunk v. City of
Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact
Case: 1:25-cv-02677-DAR Doc #: 3 Filed: 02/10/26 3 of 7. PageID #: <pageID>

4
when it is premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory or when the factual contentions are
clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.
A cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it lacks
“plausibility in the Complaint.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 564 (2007). A
pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009). The factual allegations in the
pleading must be sufficient to raise the right to relief above the speculative level on the
assumption that all the allegations in the Complaint are true. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. The
Plaintiff is not required to include detailed factual allegations, but must provide more than “an
unadorned, the-Defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A
pleading that offers legal conclusions or a simple recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not meet this pleading standard. Id. In reviewing a Complaint, the Court must construe the
pleading in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff. Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 151
F.3d 559, 561 (6th Cir.1998).
This Complaint fails to establish a basis for federal court subject matter jurisdiction.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and, unlike state trial courts, they do not have
general jurisdiction to review all questions of law. See Ohio ex rel. Skaggs v. Brunner, 549 F.3d
468, 474 (6th Cir. 2008). Instead, they have only the authority to decide cases that the
Constitution and Congress have empowered them to resolve. Id. Consequently, “[i]t is to be
presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the
contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,
511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (internal citation omitted).
Case: 1:25-cv-02677-DAR Doc #: 3 Filed: 02/10/26 4 of 7. PageID #: <pageID>

5
Generally speaking, the Constitution and Congress have given federal courts authority to
hear a case only when diversity of citizenship exists between the parties, or when the case raises
a federal question. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). The first type of
federal jurisdiction, diversity of citizenship, is applicable to cases “where the matter in
controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is
between…citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). To establish diversity of
citizenship, the Plaintiff must establish that she is a citizen of one state and all of the Defendants
are citizens of other states. The citizenship of a natural person equates to his domicile. Von
Dunser v. Aronoff, 915 F.2d 1071, 1072 (6th Cir. 1990). The second type of federal jurisdiction
relies on the presence of a federal question. This type of jurisdiction arises where a “well-
pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the
Plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal
law.” Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983).
Diversity of citizenship does not exist in this case. Plaintiff indicates that she lives in East
Cleveland, Ohio while the Defendants’ dental office is in Solon, Ohio. A plaintiff in federal court
has the burden of pleading sufficient facts to support the existence of the Court’s jurisdiction.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. In a diversity action, the plaintiff must state the citizenship of all parties so that
the existence of complete diversity can be confirmed. Washington v. Sulzer Orthopedics, Inc.,
No. 03-3350, 2003 WL 22146143, at *1 (6th Cir. Sept. 16, 2003). The Complaint, as written,
suggests that Plaintiff and Defendants are all citizens of Ohio. Consequently, federal subject
matter jurisdiction cannot be based on diversity of citizenship.
Therefore if federal jurisdiction exists in this case, it must be based on a claimed violation
of federal law. In determining whether a claim arises under federal law, the Court looks only to
Case: 1:25-cv-02677-DAR Doc #: 3 Filed: 02/10/26 5 of 7. PageID #: <pageID>

6
the “well-pleaded allegations of the Complaint and ignores potential defenses” Defendant may
raise. Mikulski v. Centerior Energy Corp., 501 F.3d 555, 560 (6th Cir. 2007). Although the well-
pleaded-complaint rule focuses on what Plaintiff alleges, it allows the Court to look past the
words of the Complaint to determine whether the allegations ultimately involve a federal
question. Ohio ex rel. Skaggs, 549 F.3d at 475.
Here, Plaintiff has not identified any true claims in her Complaint. She states her
Complaint is based on as “Malpractice and Financial and Emotional Distress.” She also includes
language of negligent billing, and intentionally, recklessly or negligently failing to provide
adequate care. All of these statements suggest she is attempting to assert tort claims arising
under state law, but her allegations fall short of being cognizable.
Similarly, she mentions “racial profiling” and makes a general statement that healthcare
providers have a duty of care that should not be based on “characteristics such as…race, gender,
or social standing.” But she does not allege any facts to suggest that her race or gender or social
standing was a motivating factor in any of the events that occurred, nor does she identify a legal
claim she may be attempting to assert. In fact, the Court would be left to guess at critical
information such as Plaintiff’s race, or why she believes her race, or gender, was a factor in her
treatment in order to try to construe a claim.
More importantly, the burden remains with Plaintiff to establish subject matter
jurisdiction. The only explanation Plaintiff gives the Court for the Defendant’s behavior is that
her insurance company denied coverage due to billing practices at Glick Dental. Plaintiff does
not mention Medicaid or Medicare in any of her allegations, leaving the Court to guess at
whether - or how - these programs had any involvement in Defendants’ actions. It is not the role
of the Court to conjure up any possible, but unpled, claim and then proceed to test each of those
Case: 1:25-cv-02677-DAR Doc #: 3 Filed: 02/10/26 6 of 7. PageID #: <pageID>

7
claims for legal viability.
Even with liberal construction, Plaintiff has failed to identify a federal question she
intends to assert in this case and the Court is unable to infer one from the limited facts and
assertions in the Complaint.
III. 	Conclusion
Therefore, this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B) because Plaintiff
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 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.
Date: February 10, 2026 s/ David A. Ruiz
DAVID A. RUIZ
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 1:25-cv-02677-DAR Doc #: 3 Filed: 02/10/26 7 of 7. PageID #: <pageID>