govinfo:USCOURTS-ohnd-1_26-cv-00917-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JEFFREY KEENER, ) CASE NO. 1:26 CV 00917 
)
Plaintiff, ) JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER
 )
  vs. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION
) AND ORDER
CROSS COUNTRY MORTGAGE, )
LLC, et al., )
)
)
Defendants. )
Pro se plaintiff Jeffrey Keener filed this civil rights action against Cross Country
Mortgage, LLC, and Berkshire Hathaway Real Estate. (Doc. No. 1).  He seeks $300,000,000 in
damages. Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 2). The
application is granted.
I. Background
Plaintiff’s complaint is a brief and incoherent narrative containing disjointed and obscure
allegations. As the basis for federal jurisdiction, Plaintiff cites “freedom of speech.” (Doc. No. 1
at 3). Plaintiff appears to allege that he was assaulted and was told, “If you go to [the] police we
will kill you.” (Id. at 4). He states that “people were paid to assault, harass, defame, befriend,
sleep with.” (Id.). He further alleges that “it has been going on for 27 years.” (Id.). He states that
his injuries include five facial scars, head wounds, broken bones, medical records and bills, and
“future medical unknown.” (Id. at 5).
Case: 1:26-cv-00917-DAP  Doc #: 4  Filed:  04/22/26  1 of 7.  PageID #: <pageID>
II. Standard of Review
Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365, 102 S.
Ct. 700, 70 L. Ed. 2d 551 (1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S. Ct.
594, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1972).  The district court, however, 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, 328,
109 S. Ct. 1827, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (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 when it is premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory or when the
factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. An action has no arguable
factual basis when the allegations are delusional or rise to the level of the irrational or “wholly
incredible.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32, 112 S. Ct. 1728, 118 L. Ed. 2d 340 (1992).
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, 127 S. Ct. 1955,
167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), 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, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (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 he or she must provide more
than “an unadorned, the defendant unlawfully harmed me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A
-2-
Case: 1:26-cv-00917-DAP  Doc #: 4  Filed:  04/22/26  2 of 7.  PageID #: <pageID>
pleading that offers legal conclusions or a simple recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not meet this pleading standard. Id. The Court is “not bound to accept as true a legal
conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S. Ct.
2932, 92 L. Ed. 2d 209 (1986).
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).
III. Discussion
The Court recognizes that pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. El Bey v. Roop, 530 F.3d 407, 413 (6th Cir. 2008).
However, the “lenient treatment generally accorded to pro se litigants has limits.” Pilgrim v.
Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996). Liberal construction for pro se litigants does not
“abrogate basic pleading requirements.” Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989). A
complaint must contain either direct or inferential allegations regarding all the material elements
of some viable legal theory to satisfy federal notice pleading requirements. See Scheid v. Fanny
Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434, 437 (6th Cir. 1988). Although specific facts are not
required, to meet the basic minimum notice pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff’s complaint must give the defendants fair notice of what the
plaintiff’s legal claims are and the factual grounds on which they rest. See Bassett v. Nat’l
Collegiate Ath. Ass’n, 528 F.3d 426, 437 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing Lillard v. Shelby County Bd. of
Educ., 76 F.3d 716, 726-27 (6th Cir. 1996)). Additionally, the Court has discretion to refuse to
accept without question the truth of Plaintiff’s allegations when they are “clearly baseless,” a
-3-
Case: 1:26-cv-00917-DAP  Doc #: 4  Filed:  04/22/26  3 of 7.  PageID #: <pageID>
term encompassing claims that may be fairly described as fanciful, fantastic, delusional, wholly
incredible, or irrational. Denton, 504 at 32-33.
Here, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to meet even the most liberal reading of the Rule 8
pleading standard. His complaint fails to contain any viable federal civil claims within the
jurisdiction of this Court or cite to any recognized legal authority. Plaintiff’s cited basis for
federal jurisdiction as “freedom of speech” is insufficient. And his sparse factual allegations are
at times wholly incredible and irrational. Plaintiff’s conclusory statements that he was told “if
you go to police we will kill you” and  “people were paid to assault, harass, defame, befriend,
sleep with” are nothing more than mere “unadorned, the defendant unlawfully harmed me
accusations.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Plaintiff therefore fails to meet the minimum pleading
requirements of Rule 8.
IV. Vexatious Litigator
Plaintiff has, on at least three prior occasions, filed a civil action in federal court that was
dismissed on grounds that it was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted. See Keener v. Cross Country Mortgage, et al., Case No. 1: 25 CV 2633 (N.D.
Ohio Jan. 22, 2026); Keener v. Leonhardt, et al., Case No. 1: 25 CV 1013 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 23,
2025); Keener v. Leonhardt, et al., Case No. 1: 25 CV 425 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 3, 2025). And on
February 11, 2026, this Court denied Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application under 28 U.S.C.
§1915(g) and dismissed another civil rights action filed by Plaintiff. See Keener v. Berkshire
Hathaway Real Estate et al., Case No. 1: 26 CV 321 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 9, 2026).
Up to this point, the courts in this district have been tolerant of Plaintiff’s pro se filings.
There comes a point, however, when we can no longer allow Plaintiff to misuse the judicial
-4-
Case: 1:26-cv-00917-DAP  Doc #: 4  Filed:  04/22/26  4 of 7.  PageID #: <pageID>
system. It is apparent that unless this Court takes steps to curtail his filings, he will continue to
bring frivolous actions. Federal courts have both the inherent power and constitutional
obligation to protect their jurisdiction from conduct which impairs the ability to carry out Article
III functions. Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1073 (11th Cir. 1986). Moreover, this Court
has the responsibility to prevent litigants from unnecessarily encroaching on judicial machinery
needed by others. Id. To achieve these ends, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit has approved enjoining vexatious and harassing litigants by requiring them to obtain
leave of court before submitting additional filings. Filipas v. Lemons, 835 F.2d 1145 (6th Cir.
1987); Wrenn v. Vanderbilt Univ. Hosp., Nos. 94-5453, 94-5593, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 5470,
1995 WL 111480 (6th Cir. Mar. 15, 1995) (authorizing a court to enjoin harassing litigation
under its inherent authority and the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (citations omitted)).
Plaintiff has established a pattern of filing complaints in this Court that are patently
frivolous and vexatious and that appear calculated to harass the defendants and abuse the
judicial process. Accordingly, Jeffrey Keener (aka Jeffrey A. Keener) is permanently enjoined
from filing any new lawsuits without seeking and obtaining leave of court from the Chief Judge
or the Miscellaneous Duty Judge in accordance with the following:
1. He must file a “Motion Pursuant to Court Order Seeking Leave to File” with any
document he proposes to file, and he must attach a copy of this Order to it (any such
Motion should be filed in a miscellaneous case).
2. As an exhibit to any Motion seeking such leave, he must also attach a declaration
which has been prepared pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 or a sworn affidavit certifying
that (1) the document raises a new issue which has never been previously raised by him
in this or any other court, (2) the claim or issue is not frivolous, and (3) the document is
not filed in bad faith.
3. By means of a second exhibit, he must identify and list: (1) the full caption of each
-5-
Case: 1:26-cv-00917-DAP  Doc #: 4  Filed:  04/22/26  5 of 7.  PageID #: <pageID>
and every suit which has been previously filed by him or on his behalf in any court
against each and every Defendant in any new suit he wishes to file, and (2) the full
caption of each and every suit which he has currently pending.
4. As a third exhibit to the Motion, he must provide a copy of each complaint identified
and listed in accordance with the foregoing Paragraph 3 and a certified record of its
disposition.
The Court may deny any Motion Pursuant to Court Order Seeking Leave to File if the proposed
document is frivolous, vexatious, or harassing. If the motion is denied, the document shall not be
filed. Additionally, Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the terms of this Order shall be sufficient
ground for this Court to deny any Motion Pursuant to Court Order Seeking Leave to File, and it
may be considered an act of contempt for which he may be punished accordingly.
      Further, to prevent future harassment by Plaintiff and the waste of this Court’s limited
resources, the Clerk’s Office is ordered as follows:
1. Any document submitted by Plaintiff prior to him obtaining leave to file shall not be
filed unless it is specifically identified as a “Motion Pursuant to Court Order Seeking
Leave to File” and unless it contains: (1) an affidavit or sworn declaration as required by
this order, (2) a copy of this Memorandum of Opinion, and (3) the exhibits required by
this Memorandum of Opinion.
2. The Clerk’s Office shall not accept any filing fees, cover sheets, in forma pauperis
applications, summonses, U.S. Marshals Forms, subpoenas, letters, or exhibits in
connection with any Motion Pursuant to Court Order Seeking Leave to File which
Plaintiff files, unless and until leave is granted.
-6-
Case: 1:26-cv-00917-DAP  Doc #: 4  Filed:  04/22/26  6 of 7.  PageID #: <pageID>
V. Conclusion
      Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis
(Doc. No. 2) and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. No. 1). Further, Plaintiff Jeffrey
Keener (aka Jeffrey A. Keener) is permanently ENJOINED from filing new cases without first
requesting and obtaining leave of court in accordance with the terms set forth in this
Memorandum Opinion and Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
 s/Dan Aaron Polster     4/22/2026           
DAN AARON POLSTER 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-7-
Case: 1:26-cv-00917-DAP  Doc #: 4  Filed:  04/22/26  7 of 7.  PageID #: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight