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.

Martin v. Wilson

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

May 15, 2018

WILLIAM E. MARTIN, Plaintiff,
v.
ROGER WILSON, et al., Defendants.

          Algenon. L. Marbley, Judge

          ORDER & REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          CHELSEY M. VASCURA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff, William E. Martin, a state inmate who is proceeding without the assistance of counsel, brings this action against a number of employees of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction and Madison Correctional Institution (collectively “Defendants”), alleging that the prison officials' “unconstitutional practice of dismantling Ohio's post-deprivation remedies” caused him to suffer uncompensated property loss. (Compl., ECF No. 1-1.) This matter is before the Court for the initial screen of Plaintiff's Complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A 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); see also McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608 (6th Cir. 1997). Having performed the initial screen, for the reasons that follow, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court DISMISS this action pursuant to § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

         This matter is also before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is required to pay the full amount of the Court's $350 filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff's certified trust fund statement reveals that he had the sum of sixty-eight cents in his prison account as of April 23, 2018. That amount is insufficient to pay the full filing fee.

         Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), the custodian of Plaintiff's inmate trust account (Inmate Number A150188) at Corrections Reception Center is DIRECTED to submit to the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio as an initial partial payment, 20% of the greater of either the average monthly deposits to the inmate trust account or the average monthly balance in the inmate trust account, for the six-months immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint. After full payment of the initial, partial filing fee, the custodian shall submit 20% of the inmate's preceding monthly income credited to the account, but only when the amount in the account exceeds $10.00 until the full fee of $350.00 has been paid to the Clerk of this Court. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997). Checks should be made payable to: Clerk, United States District Court. The checks should be sent to:

Prisoner Accounts Receivable 260 U.S. Courthouse 85 Marconi Boulevard Columbus, Ohio 43215

         The prisoner's name and this case number must be included on each check.

         It is ORDERED that Plaintiff be allowed to prosecute his action without prepayment of fees or costs and that judicial officers who render services in this action shall do so as if the costs had been prepaid. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and the prison cashier's office. The Clerk is further DIRECTED to forward a copy of this Order to the Court's financial office in Columbus.

         I.

         In his Complaint, Plaintiff outlines several instances in which other inmates' or prison officials' actions resulted in his loss of property. For each of these instances, Plaintiff details the property he lost and his attempts to utilize the prison's internal grievance procedure to obtain relief for the property losses he suffered.

         Plaintiff asserts that this Court has jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. §1983 to adjudicate his claims because Defendants have “refused to resolve the grievances[s] in question or be fair in any way whatsoever, ” which he maintains constitutes an unconstitutional “practice of dismantling” post-deprivation remedies. (Compl. 9, ECF No. 1-1; see also id. at 14 (“The [ODRC] is engaging in the unconstitutional practice of dismantling Ohio's post-deprivation remedies . . . [w]hen [it] misuses . . . the grievance procedure [to] prevent[] litigants from filing legitimate claims in state court . . . .”)

         Plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief.

         II.

         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. ...


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.