United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
OPINION AND ORDER
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, J.
he is incarcerated in the Cuyahoga County Jail, Pro
se Plaintiff Anthony Lett has filed this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 against employees of
the Lake Erie Correctional Institution (LECI): Case Managers
Bender, Barricklow, Anthony and Collins; Lieutenant Colbert;
Unit Manager Administrator Mackey; and Assistant Warden
Vantell. He alleges that on September 30, 2015, while he was
incarcerated in LECI, he “filed to receive his jail
time credit, ” and Judge Friedland granted his motion
on December 4, 2015. (Complaint, ¶¶7, 9.) He
alleges that, “[u]pon receiving the judge's
Order” in the mail, he approached and asked all of the
Defendants to investigate or change his release date, but his
requests were ignored and he was told “there was
nothing that could be done until they received something from
the court.” (Id., ¶11.) He also alleges
that Assistant Warden Vantell told him he would be sent to
segregation if he continued to ask about his release date.
$1 million in damages, the Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendants' “failure or refusal to investigate and
correct” his jail time credit constitutes gross
negligence and false imprisonment in violation of his rights
under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments “from the
time he was supposed to be released until the time he was
actually released, a total of approximately 30 days.”
(Id. at “Claims, ¶1.) In addition, he
alleges that Defendant Vardell's threat to send him to
segregation constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in
violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Id. at
“Damages/Relief, ” ¶3.)
pro se pleadings are liberally construed and held to
less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers, Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383
(6th Cir. 2011), Federal District Courts are
expressly required, under 28 U.S.C. §§1915(e)(2)(B)
and 1915A, to screen all in forma pauperis actions
and all actions in which a prisoner seeks redress from a
governmental official or employee, and to dismiss before
service any such action that the Court determines is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. See Hill v.
Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010).
To survive a dismissal for failure to state a claim, a
pro se complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state claim to relief that is
plausible on its face. Id. (holding that the
dismissal standard articulated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) governs dismissals under 28
U.S.C. §§1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A). “A claim
has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
review, the Court finds that the Plaintiff's Complaint
must be summarily dismissed under §§ 1915(e) and
Plaintiff filed a prior Section 1983 lawsuit against Judge
Friedland, Assistant Warden Vardell, the Adult Parole
Authority and LECI based on the same allegations. On August
24, 2016, Judge Polster dismissed the Plaintiff's prior
action for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1915A. See Lett v. Carolyn Friendland, et al.,
No. 1: 16 CV 1886 (Doc. No. 4). Judge Polster ruled that
Judge Friedland was immune from the Plaintiff's suit and
that his Complaint failed to state any valid federal claim
for relief. See Id. at 3 (finding that the
Plaintiff's Complaint “did not contain allegations
reasonably suggesting defendants held plaintiff beyond the
term of his sentence and were deliberately indifferent in
judgment in the Plaintiff's prior action bars his claims
in this action. The doctrine of claim preclusion provides
that, if an action results in a judgment on the merits, that
judgment operates as an absolute bar to any subsequent action
on the same cause of action between the same parties or their
privies with respect to every matter that was actually
litigated or which could have been raised in the prior case.
Cobbs v. Katona, 8 F.App'x 437 (6th Cir. 2001).
See also Bowen v. Gundy, No. 96-2327, 1997 WL
778505, at * 1 (6th Cir. Dec. 8, 1997).
even if claim preclusion did not bar all of his claims, this
Court agrees with Judge Polster that the Plaintiff's
allegations are insufficient to demonstrate any plausible
federal constitutional claim on which relief may be granted
under Section 1983.
the Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma
pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is granted and for the reasons
stated above, his action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A. Plaintiff's pending
Motions for Default (Doc. Nos. 3 and 4) and for “Order
of Judgment” (Doc. No. 5) are denied.
Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3), that
an appeal from this decision ...