United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
INITIAL SCREEN REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Herman Harris, Jr., a state inmate who is proceeding without
the assistance of counsel, brings this action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 against Aramark Incorporation, Aramark
Correctional Services, Inc., Timothy Shoop as the Deputy
Warden of Operations at Chillicothe Correctional Institution
("CO"), and employees at Pickaway Correctional
Institution ("PO") (together with Defendant Shoop,
"the Individual Defendants"). (ECF No. 6.) This
matter is before the Court for the initial screen of
Plaintiff s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 22) under 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915Ato identify cognizable
claims and to recommend dismissal of Plaintiffs 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
alsoMcGore 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 all claims for monetary
damages against the Individual Defendants in their official
capacities, Plaintiffs negligence claim under state law
against the Individual Defendants, and any claims based
solely on a Defendant's supervisory capacity. It is
FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff be
permitted to proceed with his remaining claims.
alleges that, at all times relevant to his Complaint, he was
confined at PCI. (Amended Complaint, ECF No. 22, ¶ 4
("Am. Compl.").) Plaintiff, who was working in PCI
food service, alleges that on or around March 5, 2017, he was
given "a highly toxic chemical cleaning product"
(the "chemical") and directed to clean an area.
(Id. at ¶¶ 5-7.) According to Plaintiff,
he was not properly trained to use the chemical, was given no
safety protections, and was not supervised while using the
chemical. (Id. at ¶ 7.) Plaintiff alleges that
after using the chemical, he sustained burns and injury to
his hands and has undergone multiple minor hand surgeries.
(Id. at ¶¶ 7, 11, 25.) Plaintiff names as
Defendants Aramark Incorporation, Aramark Correctional
Services, Inc., and the Individual Defendants in their
individual and official capacities. (Id. at caption,
¶ 23.) Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief as well as
exemplary, compensatory, and punitive damages. (Id.
at ¶ 52.)
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
(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 Hillv. 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 SouthfieldLtd., P 'Ship v.
Flagstar Bank, F.S.B., 727 F.3d 502, 503 (6th Cir.
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).
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. 08-3978, 2010 WL 1252923,
at *2 (6th Cir. April 1, 2010) (quoting Haines v.
Kerner,404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)). This lenient
treatment, however, has ...