United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
WILLIAM E. MARTIN Plaintiff,
JOHN R. KASICH, et al. Defendants.
C. Smith Magistrate Judge.
ORDER AND INITIAL SCREEN REPORT AND
ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
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. §
Undersigned finds that Plaintiff's claims are not
cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and therefore
RECOMMENDS that the Court
DISMISS his Complaint.
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.)
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) 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 ...