Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Martin v. Kasich

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

January 9, 2018

WILLIAM E. MARTIN Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN R. KASICH, et al. Defendants.

          George C. Smith Magistrate Judge.

          ORDER AND INITIAL SCREEN REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Plaintiff, a state inmate under the supervision of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, brings this prisoner civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. All judicial officers who render services in this action shall do so as if the costs had been prepaid. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). This matter is before the Court sua sponte for an initial screen of Plaintiff's Complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. § 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. § 1915A(b).

         The Undersigned finds that Plaintiff's claims are not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and therefore RECOMMENDS that the Court DISMISS his Complaint.

         I.

         According to the Complaint, Defendants transported Plaintiff off-site in order to undergo a medical procedure. (ECF No. 1-1 at 5.) Plaintiff states that, while he was away, another prisoner stole his property, which Defendants allegedly failed to properly protect. (Id.) According to Plaintiff, Defendants variously allowed the other prisoner to steal Plaintiff's property, destroyed Plaintiff's property, and failed to respond to Plaintiff's grievances. (Id. at 5-8.)

         II.

         Congress 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). In 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)[1] 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.