United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
H. Rice, District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 
L. Ovington, United States Magistrate Judge
David London Battles, a resident of Trotwood, Ohio, brings
this case pro se against a single Defendant-Trotwood
Police Department. The Court previously granted
Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma
pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The case is
presently before the Court for a sua sponte review
to determine whether Plaintiff's Complaint, or any
portion of it, must be dismissed because it is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks
monetary relief against an immune defendant. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see, e.g., Anson v.
Corr. Corp. of Am., 529 Fed. App'x 558, 559-60 (6th
alleges in his pro se Complaint that his
father's girlfriend called the Trotwood Police
Department, claiming that he (Plaintiff) had assaulted her
son. Trotwood Police arrested Plaintiff without doing any
investigation. He alleges, “So they I feel like
kidnapped me[, ] held me for ransom[, ] and went off of
[hearsay] ….” (Doc. #1, PageID #8). He
further alleges that when he has called the Trotwood Police
“on somebody else case # TR16-4731 they say to me we
have to investigate it and nothing ever gets done
….” Id. He claims that this has
happened a number of times.
requests for relief, “Investigate Trotwood Police or
fire somebody or something …” Id. at 9.
He believes that it is wrong for them not to investigate when
he calls them but to investigate when someone calls them
complaint may be dismissed as frivolous under §
1915(e)(2) “only if the plaintiff fails to present a
claim with ‘an arguable basis either in law or
fact.'” Brand v. Motley, 526 F.3d 921, 923
(6th Cir. 2008) (quoting, in part, Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)). A complaint lacks
an arguable legal basis when it presents “indisputably
meritless” legal theories-for example, when the
defendant is immune from suit or when the plaintiff claims a
violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist.
See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327-328; see also
Brand, 526 F.3d at 923. A complaint lacks arguable facts
when its allegations are “fantastic or
delusional.” Brand, 526 F.3d at 923 (quoting
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327-28); see Lawler v.
Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196, 1199 (6th Cir. 1900).
Court's sua sponte review also requires
dismissal of an in forma pauperis complaint, or any
portion of it, that fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); see
Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). To
state such a claim, the “complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(quoting, in part, Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
Plaintiff's allegations as true and construing his
Complaint liberally in his favor reveals that he seeks to
challenge his arrest by the Trotwood Police Department under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. This challenge, however, fails as a
matter of law because the “City of Trotwood Police
Department, being a mere arm of the City of Trotwood, is not
its own entity, and is not capable of being sued (i.e., it is
not sui juris ).” Hale v. Vance, 267
F.Supp.2d 725, 737 (S.D. Ohio 2003) (Rice, DJ).
Plaintiff's Complaint does not identify any other
Plaintiff's Complaint is subject to dismissal under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) without prejudice to renewal
unless he amends it to identify a proper party defendant.
IS THEREFORE ...