United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER
R. ADAMS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
se Plaintiff Ali Moshir brings this civil rights action
against Northeast Ohio Correctional Center
(“NEOCC”) Sergeant Sullivan, NEOCC, Corrections
Corporation of America (“CCA”)/Core Civic, the
United States Marshal Service, the United States Government,
Mahoning County, the State of Ohio, and “any other
could be/would be added as involved entity(s).” (ECF
No. 1 at 1). Plaintiff contends the prison will not accept
his grievances when he sends them in handmade envelopes
constructed from paper towels. He seeks one billion dollars
Complaint is very brief. He indicates he does not have much
money in his inmate trust account and the staff will not
provide him with envelopes for any purpose other than mail
going outside of the prison. He therefore made his own
envelopes from paper towels to send his grievances within the
prison. He claims the prison refused to accept his grievances
in these envelopes. He does not specify the legal cause(s) of
action he wishes to assert.
Standard of Review
District Court is expressly authorized to dismiss any civil
action filed by a prisoner seeking relief from a governmental
entity, as soon as possible after docketing, if the Court
concludes that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or if the Plaintiff seeks
monetary relief from a Defendant who is immune from such
relief. 28 U.S.C. §1915A; Siller v. Dean, No.
99-5323, 2000 WL 145167, at *2 (6th Cir. Feb. 1, 2000);
see Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974)
(citing numerous Supreme Court cases for the proposition that
attenuated or unsubstantial claims divest the District Court
of jurisdiction); In re Bendectin Litig., 857 F.2d
290, 300 (6th Cir. 1988) (recognizing that federal question
jurisdiction is divested by unsubstantial claims).
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 (2007). 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 (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. Bell Atl.
Corp., 550 U.S. at 555. The Plaintiff is not required to
include detailed factual allegations, but must provide more
than “an unadorned, the-Defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
A pleading that offers legal conclusions or a simple
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not meet
this pleading standard. Id. 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).
initial matter, Plaintiff has not identified a cause of
action and none is apparent on the face of the Complaint. He
appears to suggest he has a right to send grievances in hand
made envelopes. There is no constitutionally protected due
process right to unfettered access to prison grievance
procedures. Walker v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections,
No. 04-1347, 2005 WL 742743, at *3 (6th Cir. Apr. 1, 2005).
To the extent this is his legal cause of action, he fails to
state a claim upon which relief maybe granted.
the United States, the United States Marshal Service, and the
State of Ohio are immune from suit. The United States, as a
sovereign, cannot be sued without its prior consent, and the
terms of its consent define the Court's subject matter
jurisdiction. McGinness v. U.S., 90 F.3d 143, 145
(6th Cir. 1996). A waiver of sovereign immunity must be
strictly construed, unequivocally expressed, and cannot be
implied. U.S. v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 4 (1969);
Soriano v. U.S., 352 U.S. 270, 276 (1957). The
United States government has not consented to suit under
Bivens. Berger v. Pierce, 933 F.2d 393,
397 (6th Cir. 1991). The Eleventh Amendment provides
sovereign immunity to the State of Ohio. Latham v. Office
of Atty. Gen. of State of Ohio, 395 F.3d 261, 270 (6th
cannot bring a Bivens claim against NEOCC, or
CCA/Core Civic. Bivens provides a limited cause of
action against individual federal government officers acting
under color of federal law alleged to have acted
unconstitutionally. Correctional Services Corporation v.
Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 70 (2001). Bivens'
purpose is to deter individual federal officers, not the
agency, from committing constitutional violations. A
Bivens action therefore cannot be brought against an
entity such as the federal prison, the Bureau of Prisons, or
the United States Government. Id. CCA, now known as
Core Civic, is a private corporation that owns and operates
NEOCC. To avoid imposing asymmetrical liability costs on
private prison facilities, the Supreme Court declined to
expand Bivens to provide this cause of action
against a private prison corporation. Id. at 70-74
(pointing out that when a prisoner in a Bureau of Prisons
facility alleges a constitutional deprivation, his only
remedy lies against the offending individual officer).
Plaintiff does not allege any wrong-doing by Mahoning County.
He cannot establish the liability of any Defendant absent a
clear showing that the Defendant was personally involved in
the activities which form the basis of the alleged
unconstitutional behavior. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S.
362, 371 (1976); Mullins v. Hainesworth, No.
95-3186, 1995 WL 559381 (6th Cir. Sept. 20, 1995). A
municipality can only be held liable when it
unconstitutionally “implements or executes a policy
statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially
adopted by that body's officers.” See Monell v.
Department of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690(1978). He
does not allege any facts suggesting how Mahoning County was
involved in the grievance process at NEOCC.
this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A.
The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3),
that an appeal from ...