United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
a resident of Cincinnati, Ohio, brings this pro se civil
action against the Hamilton County Justice Center and
"multiple officers." By separate Order, plaintiff
has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This matter is before the
Court for a sua sponte review of plaintiff s complaint to
determine whether the complaint, or any portion of it, should
be dismissed because it is frivolous, malicious, fails to
state a claim upon vt'hich relief may be granted or seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2XB).
enacting the original in forma pauperis statute.
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."
Denton V. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992) (quoting
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989)). To
prevent such abusive litigation. Congress has authorized
federal courts to dismiss an in forma pauperis
complaint if they are satisfied that the action is frivolous
or malicious. Id.; see also 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A complaint may be dismissed
as frivolous when the plaintiff cannot make any claim with a
rational or arguable basis in fact or law. Neitzke,
490 U.S. at 328-29; see also Lawler v. Marshall, 898
F.2d 1196, 1198 (6th Cir. 1990). An action has no arguable
legal basis when the defendant is immune from suit or when
plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest which
clearly does not exist. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. An
action has no arguable factual basis when the allegations are
delusional or rise to the level of the irrational or
"wholly incredible." Denton, 504 U.S. at
32; Lawler, 898 F.2d at 1199. The Court need not
accept as true factual allegations that are "fantastic
or delusional" in reviewing a complaint for
frivolousness. Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 471
(6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328).
also has authorized the sua sponte dismissal of
complaints that fail to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii). A
complaint filed by dipro se plaintiff must be
"liberally construed" and "held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,
" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)
(per curiam) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.
97, 106 (1976)). By the same token, however, the complaint
"must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also
Hill, 630 F.3d at 470-71 ("dismissal standard
articulated in Iqbal and Twombly governs
dismissals for failure to state a claim" under
§§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)).
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The Court must accept all
well-pleaded factual allegations as true, but need not
"accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual
allegation." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting
Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)).
Although a complaint need not contain "detailed factual
allegations, " it must provide "more than an
unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation,
" Jqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing
Twonibly, 550 U.S. at 555). A pleading that offers
"labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
do." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Nor does a
complaint suffice if it tenders "naked
assertion[s]" devoid of "further factual
enhancement." Id. at 557. The complaint must
"give the defendant fair notice of what the . ., claim
is and the grounds upon which it rests."
Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93 (citations omitted).
pro se complaint alleges, verbatim, that on some unspecified
I was being book into the justices center, I was complyent,
the didn't take me threw the scanner coming in they took
me to the back room, told me to strip, as I took my clothes
off to squat and coff, they beging beating me badly then drug
me naket to a chair, and left me there once I got to a room
they skipped meals then cut off my water, I had no reason to
go to that back room, it was serious personal injury 28 USCA
1915(g) cut in arm will discuss more of the serious injury
(Doc. 1-1 at 3). As relief, plaintiff seeks $40 million and
"charges pressed on them." (Id. at 4).
complaint is subject to dismissal at the screening stage for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted by
this Court. In order to state a viable claim under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, plaintiff must allege facts showing that he was
deprived of "a right secured by the United States
Constitution or a federal statute by a person who was acting
under color of state law." Spadafore v.
Gardner, 330 F.3d 849, 852 (6th Cir.2003). Here,
plaintiffs factual allegations do not give rise to a
plausible claim of federal constitutional dimension against
the named defendant or unidentified "multiple
plaintiffs complaint against the Hamilton County Justice
Center is subject to dismissal because the jail is not a
"person" or legal entity that can be sued under
§ 1983. See Marbry v. Corr. Med Servs., No.
99-6706, 2000 WL 1720959, at *2 (6th Cir. Nov. 6, 2000)
(citing Rhodes v. McDannel, 945 F.2d 117, 120 (6th
Cir. 1991) (per curiam)); Howell v. Hamilton Cty.
Justice, Qr., No. 1:15-CV-303, 2015 WL 2406082, at *3
(S.D. Ohio May 20, 2015) (Report and Recommendation) (finding
county jail is not a "person" that can be sued
under § 1983), adopted, 2015 WL 3852912 (S.D.
Ohio June 22, 2015). Therefore, the complaint against the
Hamilton County Justice Center should be dismissed.
plaintiffs complaint against "multiple officers"
fails to state a claim for relief because it fails to give
sufficient factual details about the individuals involved or
the particular actions they allegedly took to permit the
Court to draw the reasonable inference that such individuals
are liable for the misconduct plaintiff alleges.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. In the caption of the
filMn-the-blank form complaint plaintiff lists the term
"multiple officers" when identifying the
defendants. However, plaintiff does not identify any
particular officer by name, place of employment, or
jurisdiction, or provide any other identifying information to
give the potential defendant fair notice of his or her
identity or any claims against him or her in an individual
capacity. In the body of the complaint, plaintiff alleges
vaguely that "they" beat him, placed him on a
chair, and deprived him of "meals" and
"water." Plaintiff does not allege the date or the
time any alleged beating or other deprivations occurred to
indicate whether such actions occurred within the appropriate
two-year statute of limitations that governs § 1983
actions, see Banks v. City of Whitehall, 344 F, 3d
550, 553-54 (6th Cir. 2003); he does not allege the number of
individuals allegedly involved in the deprivations or their
positions within the jail; he does not state the type of
injuries he allegedly sustained from the "beating"
aside from a "cut" in his arm; and he does not
allege any facts from which the Court could conclude that any
particular individual had the subjective intent to violate
plaintiffs constitutional rights. Plaintiff is required to
give fair notice of a claim for relief and cite the grounds
upon which it rests. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2);
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Plaintiffs vague and general
allegations amount to nothing "more than an unadorned,
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555). Plaintiffs complaint against "multiple
defendants" does not provide adequate notice to any
individual that a claim has been asserted against them, and
the complaint should therefore be dismissed.
IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:
Plaintiffs complaint be DISMISSED ...