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.

Al'Shahid v. Mohr

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

April 4, 2018

CURTIS AL'SHAHID, Plaintiff,
v.
GARY C. MOHR, et al., Defendants.

          Michael H. Watson, Judge

          ORDER AND INITIAL SCREEN REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff, Thomas Albert, an Ohio citizen who is proceeding without the assistance of counsel, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Gary C. Mohr, Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections, and Andre Imbrogno, Chairperson of the Ohio Adult Parole Board (collectively “Defendants”), all of whom are Ohio citizens. 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 United States Magistrate Judge for the initial screen of Plaintiff's Complaint and Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 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. § 1915(e)(2). Having performed the initial screen, for the reasons that follow, it is RECOMMENDED that the Court DISMISS this Plaintiff's claims against Defendants for failure to assert any claim over which this Court has subject matter jurisdiction.

         I.

         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 fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

         A federal court has limited subject matter jurisdiction. “The basic statutory grants of federal court subject-matter jurisdiction are contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides for ‘[f]ederal-question' jurisdiction, and § 1332, which provides for ‘[d]iversity of citizenship' jurisdiction.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 501 (2006). Federal-question jurisdiction is invoked when a plaintiff pleads a claim “arising under” the federal laws, the Constitution, or treaties of the United States. Id. (citation omitted). For a federal court to have diversity jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1332(a), there must be complete diversity, which means that each plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state than each defendant, and the amount in controversy must exceed $75, 000. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996).

         II.

         According to the Complaint and Amended Complaint, Defendants were involved in various capacities with Plaintiff's denial of parole. (ECF No. 1-1 at 2-3 & 1-6 at 2.) On May 1, 2014, and March 1, 2017, Plaintiff was denied parole by the Ohio Adult Parole Board. (ECF No. 1-1 at 3.) Plaintiff alleges that an intentionally inaccurate report of his previous convictions caused these denials and that Defendants are responsible for the inaccuracies. (Id. at 2-4.) Plaintiff maintains that Defendants thereby violated his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. (Id. At 4.) Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive ...


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.