United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division
James T. Dixon, Plaintiff
Corrections Officer Leu, et al., Defendants
Jeffrey J. Helmick United States District Judge.
case involves an altercation at the Lucas County Jail on
November 23, 2016, between Plaintiff James T. Dixon, an
inmate at that time, and several employees of the Lucas
County Sheriff's Department. Those employees include
Correction Officers Leu, Momenee, and Arp, Sgt. Mysinger, and
statement of claim, the pro se Plaintiff alleges the
On 11-23-16[, ] I J. Dixon was on the 6th floor of
the Toledo County Jail. I was in my cell 1# and I told an
Inmate to get the C/O Arp[.] So when the C/O came he got
mad[.] I told him let me get by 4hr out for 2nd
Shift[.] I can only come out the cell 8hr a day do to me
comeing to State Jail[.] So C/O Arp open[e]d the door to the
unit and Said I don[']t If I[‘]m late[.] I will
still lock down at 11:00 pm[.] So I told him I want my
time[.] So we was haveing a verbal event. So the other C/Os
heard C/O Leu and C/O Momenee came[.] So as things was going
on C/O Leu told me to lock down [.] at first I did not[.] the
C/O Leu push[ed] me So that[‘]s when I went in my
cell[.] So as I was standing at the door C/O Leu Began to say
how he will Beat my ass[.] So when he was talkin[g] he was
spit[t]ing on me [and] he punched me In my face. Then the
other too C/Os was punching me In my head and face. I spoke
to the Sgt [M]ysinger about C/O Arp and Leu But he only
smiled and told me to le[a]ve it Be[.] Befour this happen on
11-23-16[, ] he fail to Intervene[.] I was took to the ER off
Campes for my face[.] So when I told Lt Brownridge about the
video[, ] he played like it showed nothing and after this C/O
Leu was still saying things[.] I did speak to Lt Brownridge
and he fail[ed] to do a thing.
(Doc. No. 1 at pp. 3-4).
upon these allegations, Plaintiff's claims include: (1) a
failure to intervene against Defendants Mysinger and Momenee;
and (2) excessive use of force against Defendants Leu, Arp,
and Momenee. In his civil cover sheet, submitted after his
complaint was filed, Plaintiff indicated the nature of the
action to be a federal question and falling under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, as violations of his civil rights. (Doc. No. 3).
matter is before me on the Defendants' unopposed motion
for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, the
Defendants' motion is well taken.
Summary Judgment Standard
judgment is appropriate if the movant demonstrates there is
no genuine dispute of material fact and that the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a).
All evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to
the nonmovant, White v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 533
F.3d 381, 390 (6th Cir. 2008), and all reasonable inferences
are drawn in the nonmovant's favor. Rose v. State
Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 766 F.3d 532, 535 (6th Cir.
2014). A factual dispute is genuine if a reasonable jury
could resolve the dispute and return a verdict in the
nonmovant's favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A disputed fact is
material only if its resolution might affect the outcome of
the case under the governing substantive law. Rogers v.
O'Donnell, 737 F.3d 1026, 1030 (6th Cir. 2013).
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
the general federal question jurisdiction statute, federal
district courts have original jurisdiction of “all
civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or
treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
As correctly noted by Defendants, the deprivation of rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and
federal law is actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
the complaint does not expressly invoke a violation of his
Constitutional rights, I agree with the Defendants that the
complaint could be construed to allege an assault, a battery,
or both. As a convicted prisoner, the Plaintiff may bring an
excessive force claim ...