The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge James L. Graham
Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §1983 ("Section 1983"), in which plaintiff, an inmate at the Warren Correctional Institution ("WCI"), in Lebanon, Ohio, alleges that defendants' classification practices at WCI subject him to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Doc. No. 6, and plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 ("Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions"), Doc. No. 9. For the reasons that follow, it is RECOMMENDED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED and that Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions be DENIED.
Plaintiff is assigned to the "protective control unit" at WCI. Amended Complaint, ¶ 16. Plaintiff complains that:
The defendants are allowing inmates in protective control to mingle and congregate who have security levels 1-A through 4-B and in direct violation of defendants' own policies, are assigning inmates to institutions not consistent with the inmates' security level classifications.
Id. ¶ 14.*fn1 Plaintiff claims that the assignment to protective control of violent inmates has caused him mental distress for which he seeks monetary and injunctive relief. Id. ¶¶ 19-21, 23-78.
Plaintiff has named as defendants in this action Reginald Wilkinson, the former Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ["ODRC"], ODRC's former Deputy Director of Institutions Terry Collins, ODRC's South Region Director Steve Huffman, ODRC's Chief of the Bureau of Classification and Reception William A. Eleby and ODRC's Chief Inspector Gary Croft. Id. pgs. 1, 2.
On October 31, 2005, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Doc. No. 6. Plaintiff filed his Memorandum contra Motion to Dismiss ("Plaintiff's Memorandum contra") on November 16, 2005. Doc. No. 8. In addition, on November 16, 2005, plaintiff filed Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions claiming that defendants filed Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in bad faith and for the purpose of delay. Doc. No. 9.
A. Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
A motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) attacks the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Roth Steel Prods. v. Sharon Steel Co., 705 F.2d 134, 155 (6th Cir. 1983). In determining whether dismissal on this basis is appropriate, the complaint must be construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and all well-pleaded facts must be accepted as true. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974); Bower v. Federal Express Corp., 96 F.3d 200, 203 (6th Cir. 1996); Misch v. The Cmty. Mutual Ins. Co., 896 F. Supp. 734, 738 (S.D. Ohio 1994). A claim will be dismissed if "it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957).
Thus, this Court will grant a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) if the complaint is without merit because of an absence of facts or law to support the claims in it or if, on the face of the complaint, there is an insurmountable bar to relief. See generally, ...