United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER
Y. Pearson United States District Judge
Se Plaintiff Ronald Chappell filed a Complaint (ECF No.
1) in this action against Drs. Jason Rock and Amanda Mason,
and a “Patient Relations Supervisor” at Mercy
alleges he was taken by ambulance to Mercy Health located in
Boardman, Ohio for severe dizziness and headaches on January
1, 2018. ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 2, ¶ 8. He was a patient
at Mercy Health located on Belmont Avenue in Youngstown, Ohio
from January 2, 2018 until January 5, 2018. ECF No. 1 at
PageID #: 1, ¶ 3. He told Dr. Mason, his attending
physician at the Youngstown, Ohio location, he was
experiencing these problems because, in November 2017,
“a nurse intentionally tore off a piece of I.V.
catheter in [his] vein and it moved . . . and is . . .
possibly lodged in a vein in [his] head. ECF No. 1 at PageID
#: 2, ¶ 9-10. Plaintiff told the doctor he did not know
why the nurse would do that, and that he had initiated a
hospital (4:18CV0133) investigation and attempted to initiate
a FBI investigation into that act. ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 2,
¶ 11. He also told Dr. Mason he had several other
“open FBI investigations into criminals/criminal groups
and corrupt public officials in cahoots with them, ”
and had a pending lawsuit “against public officials who
attacked [him] viciously and lied trying to cover up the
attack.” ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 3, ¶ 12.
contends Dr. Mason violated 42 U.S.C. §§
1983 and 1985 because she did not perform
the medical procedures and tests he desired to locate the
I.V. piece allegedly lost in his circulatory system, but
instead conspired with Dr. Rock to have him committed to the
psychiatric unit of the hospital. ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 3-4,
¶¶ 16-17. Dr. Rock was the attending psychiatrist
who visited Plaintiff in the Behavioral Health Unit of the
hospital. Plaintiff alleges Dr. Rock told him Plaintiff was
going to miss court deadlines, his lawsuit was going to be
dismissed, and that he was not going to get any money. Dr.
Rock also allegedly told Plaintiff he was going to get a
court order to have the Plaintiff committed indefinitely for
seeking medical care. ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 4, ¶ 17.
Plaintiff asserts he was told by both doctors, after he
informed them he was going to get released by a writ of
habeas corpus, that if he did get out and return to the
hospital for medical care, he would be committed to the
Behavioral Health Unit or jailed. ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 4,
does not allege any specific constitutional provision or
federal law he contends Defendants violated, but in the
prayer for relief he seeks a declaration that the acts and
omissions he describes violate the Constitution and laws of
the United States. He also seeks monetary damages against
each Defendant, an injunction barring Defendants from
re-committing him to the Behavioral Health Unit if he seeks
medical care, and an order requiring them to do all tests
“necessary to locate/remove the I.V. piece in [his]
circulatory system.” ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 5-6. For
the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's action is dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Standard for Dismissal
pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag
v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam);
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the
district court is required under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) to review all in forma pauperis
complaints, and to dismiss before service any such complaint
that the court determines is frivolous or malicious, fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief. See Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470 (6th
Cir. 2010). A complaint fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted when it lacks “sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Id. at 470-71 (holding
that the dismissal standard articulated in Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) governs dismissals for
failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)). A
complaint is frivolous when “it lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The “term
‘frivolous, ' when applied to a complaint, embraces
not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the
fanciful factual allegation.” Id.In other
words, dismissal for frivolousness is appropriate where the
“claims describ[e] fantastic or delusional scenarios,
claims with which federal district judges are all too
familiar.” Id. at 328. See also Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (dismissal is
appropriate when the “facts alleged rise to the level
of the irrational or the wholly incredible”).
Law and Analysis
review, the Court finds that the Complaint (ECF No. 1) must
be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Even
liberally construed, it does not contain allegations
reasonably suggesting Plaintiff has any plausible federal
claim against Defendants. See Lillard v. Shelby County
Bd. of Educ., 76 F.3d 716, 726 (6th Cir. 1996) (a court
is not required to accept summary allegations or unwarranted
conclusions in determining whether a complaint states a claim
for relief). Furthermore, Plaintiff's allegations in the
case at bar fall within the realm of frivolousness. See,
e.g., Rogers v. Ralles, No. 2:14-CV-259, 2015
WL 566687 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 11, 2015) (dismissing complaint
alleging that prison doctors and employees awakened him from
his sleep by administering injections of unknown substances
which altered his heart rate and mind set); Henry v.
Caruso, No. 13-12881, 2014 WL 525032 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 7,
2014) (dismissing complaint premised on allegations that
prison officials surgically implanted transmission devices
into plaintiff's neck).
Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted, his motion for an
expedited ruling on his in forma pauperis motion
(ECF No. 3) is denied as moot, and this action is dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court
certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an
appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.