United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
WILLIAM E. MARTIN, Plaintiff,
ROGER WILSON, et al., Defendants.
Algenon. L. Marbley, Judge
ORDER & REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
CHELSEY M. VASCURA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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
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.
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
prisoner's name and this case number must be included on
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
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.
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 . . .
seeks declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief.
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