United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Michael H. Watson, Judge
INITIAL SCREEN REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Tibor Sebestyen, a state inmate who is proceeding without the
assistance of counsel, brings this action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 against the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Corrections (“ODRC”) and employees at Chillicothe
Correctional Institution (“CCI”) and London
Correctional Institution (“LoCI”) (collectively,
“the Individual Defendants”). (ECF No. 4.) This
matter is before the Court for the initial screen of
Plaintiff's Complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2) and 1915A to identify cognizable claims and to
recommend dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint, or any
portion of it, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A(b); see also McGore
v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608 (6th Cir. 1997).
Having performed the initial screen, for the reasons that
follow, it is RECOMMENDED that the Court
DISMISS Plaintiff's claims against the
ODRC, the claims against Defendants Charlotte Jenkins, C.O.
Long, J. Noble, and Mr. Ferrell, and the claims for money
damages against the remaining Individual Defendants in their
official capacities and that Plaintiff be permitted to
proceed with his remaining claims.
enacted 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the federal in forma
pauperis statute, seeking to “lower judicial
access barriers to the indigent.” Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992).
doing so, however, “Congress recognized that ‘a
litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the
public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive
to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive
lawsuits.'” Id. at 31 (quoting Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989)). To address this
concern, Congress included subsection (e) as part of the
statute, which provides in pertinent part:
(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof,
that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at
any time if the court determines that--
* * *
(B) the action or appeal--
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;
or . . . .
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii);
Denton, 504 U.S. at 31. Thus, § 1915(e)
requires sua sponte dismissal of an action upon the
Court's determination that the action is frivolous or
malicious, or upon determination that the action fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
properly state a claim upon which relief may be granted, a
plaintiff must satisfy the basic federal pleading
requirements set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
8(a). See also Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d
468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010) (applying Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) standards to review under 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). Under Rule
8(a)(2), a complaint must contain a “short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Thus, Rule 8(a)
“imposes legal and factual demands on the
authors of complaints.” 16630 Southfield Ltd.,
P'Ship v. Flagstar Bank, F.S.B., 727
F.3d 502, 503 (6th Cir. 2013).
this pleading standard does not require
“‘detailed factual allegations, ' . . . [a]
pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions' or
‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action, '” is insufficient. Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A
complaint will not “suffice if it tenders ‘naked
assertion[s]' devoid of ‘further factual
enhancement.'” Id. (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Instead, to survive a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule
12(b)(6), “a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter . . . to ‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.'” Id. (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Facial plausibility is
established “when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Id. “The plausibility of an inference depends
on a host of considerations, including common sense and the
strength of competing explanations for the defendant's
conduct.” Flagstar Bank, 727 F.3d at 504
(citations omitted). Further, the Court holds pro se
ain complaints “‘to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'” Garrett
v. Belmont Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't., No. ...