United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
OPINION AND ORDER
STEPHANIE K. BOWMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
a prisoner currently incarcerated at the Southern
Correctional Facility (SOCF) and a prolific litigant in both
the state and federal courts of Ohio,  filed this
§1983 action alleging violations of his civil rights
while he was incarcerated at the Toledo Correctional
Institution (ToCI), as well as after his transfer to SOCF.
His original complaint alleges that in September 2014, while
at ToCI, he sought help from Chief Inspector Roger Wilson
because he was treated like an animal. On September 12, 2014,
he alleges that ToCI Warden Coleman ordered ToCI officers to
take and dispose of Plaintiff's legal work and other
property. After his transfer to SOCF, Plaintiff alleges that
he was subjected to racist and derogatory remarks, and was
physically assaulted by a number of officers, including
Defendants Rankin, Southworth, Neff, Parish, and John Doe,
and possibly Workman. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Dr.
Ahmed Fiscal denied him medical care after the assault, and
continues to deny him care for a skin disease. The original
complaint contains additional allegations regarding
Plaintiff's conditions of confinement, as well as an
attack on Plaintiff's conviction and sentence.
undersigned initially filed an R&R recommending that
Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis
be denied, as he had previously filed at least three cases in
this Court that had been dismissed at the screening stage,
and had failed to demonstrate “imminent danger”
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). However, the presiding
district judge rejected that R&R on December 5, 2016,
determining that Plaintiff had “adequately alleged
imminent harm in a manner sufficient to allow the Court to
grant him in forma pauperis status, ” (Doc. 9
at 3, PageID 37). Thereafter, the undersigned conducted a
full screening of the merits of Plaintiff's claims under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and permitted the following of
Plaintiff's claims to proceed:
(1) Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against
defendants Rardin, Southworth, Neff, Parish, John Doe, and
Workman based on plaintiff's allegation that these
officers attacked him upon his arrival to SOCF; (2) excessive
force claim against Sgt. Bear based on the January 17, 2017
attack; (3) deliberate indifference claim against Dr. Ahmed
Fiscal; and (4) conditions of confinement claims at SOCF,
including plaintiff's claims regarding wheelchair
accessibility, against defendants Warden Erdos, Dyer, and
Bear. Having found that the remaining allegations in the
complaint fail to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, the remainder of the complaint should be dismissed.
(Doc. 12 at 12, PageID62; adopted at Doc. 25). The
undersigned directed the U.S. Marshal to serve a copy of the
complaint as supplemented upon Defendants Rardin, Southworth,
Neff, Parish, Workman, Bear, Faisal, Erdos and Dyer. (Doc.
date, service has been perfected on Defendants Rardin,
Parish, Bear, Erdos and Dyer, but has not yet been perfected
on Defendants Southworth, Neff, Workman, or Dr. Ahmed Fiscal.
Recently, the Court received notice that Defendant Southworth
is deceased. On May 16, 2017, the Court directed the Ohio
Attorney General to supply additional information for
Defendants Workman, Ahmed [Fiscal] and Neff, so that service
can be reissued. (Doc. 32).
meantime, Plaintiff has inundated this Court by filing 18
motions through June 2, 2017. By separate R&R filed this
same day, the undersigned has addressed all of
Plaintiff's dispositive motions. This Opinion and Order
is intended to address Plaintiff's remaining
non-dispositive motions. A separate Order addresses the issue
of service of the remaining Defendants.
Analysis of Five Motions (Docs. 14, 15, 16, 17, 33)
of Plaintiff's motions appear to be in the nature of
objections to one or both of the prior R&Rs filed by the
undersigned, and therefore are moot, given Judge Black's
subsequent Orders rejecting the first R&R and adopting
the second R&R. For example, on March 8, 2017. Plaintiff
filed a motion “to Correct Plaintiff's Motion for
Partial Objections of R&R Combined with Motions to Issue
Serv. On Defendant and Reserve Completion of Objection at
Earliest of Able - Within Ninety Days.” (Doc. 14). In
addition to the referenced issues, the motion generally
contains many complaints about the denial of envelopes from
the commissary, the denial of access to a shower, and
multiple other conditions that Plaintiff alleges are in
violation of his rights.
Court declines to consider Plaintiff's iteration of
additional complaints and allegations about the conditions of
his confinement in the context of this motion. The eighteen
motions he has filed thus far in this case, in addition to
the objections previously filed and considered by the
presiding district judge, confirm that Plaintiff is not being
denied his right of access to this Court. Plaintiff also has
already amended his complaint once as of right, as his
supplemental filing previously was considered by this Court
to establish imminent danger. Plaintiff's objections to
the R&Rs have already been considered by Judge Black, and
service has been issued. Service on the remaining Defendants
is addressed by separate Order. Therefore, the motion filed
as Docket Entry 14 will be denied as moot.
March 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed a second motion entitled
“Motion of Exhibit from Roger Wilson.” (Doc. 15).
To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking to file any form of
“evidence” in support of his underlying
complaint, as amended, the motion is procedurally improper.
Evidentiary exhibits may be filed to support a dispositive
motion (typically filed at the close of discovery) or -
rarely - in other circumstances to support specific relief.
The motion filed by Plaintiff merely reiterates general and
specific claims made in his underlying complaint. The motion
is procedurally improper and there exists no basis for
admitting the attached exhibit; therefore, the motion will be
motion filed on March 8, 2017 is entitled “Notion Iss.
Serv. Set. Identi. Of John Doe Combined Motion for Extension
of Time Pro Object R&R (Doc. 12) /w Exhibits Attatched
Hereto 3:01-04 [sic].” (Doc. 16). To the extent this
this motion concerns service on John Doe, it is denied as
moot in light of the recommended dismissal of that Defendant.
The motion also appears to be moot in other respects. The
evidentiary exhibits ...