United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Michael H. Watson Judge.
ORDER AND INITIAL SCREEN REPORT AND
ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Rammie Manley, a state inmate who is proceeding without the
assistance of counsel, previously filed his Complaint (ECF
No. 1), but failed to pay the requisite $400.00 filing fee or
to file an application for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. The Court therefore issued an Order and Notice
of Deficiency, advising Plaintiff of this deficiency and
ordering him to submit the required filing fee or an
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
(ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff has now filed a motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4), along with a
certified copy of his trust fund statement (ECF No. 5).
Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 4) is GRANTED. All
judicial officers who render services in this action shall do
so as if the costs had been prepaid. However, having
performed the initial screen of the Complaint required by 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e), for the reasons that follow, it is
RECOMMENDED that the Court
DISMISS this Plaintiff's claims against
Defendant Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections
(“ODRC”) for failure to assert any claim on which
relief may be granted and that the remaining claims be
TRANSFERRED to the Northern District of Ohio
Eastern Division at Youngstown.
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) 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.
properly state a claim upon which relief may be granted, a
plaintiff must satisfy the basic federal pleading
requirements set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
8(a). See also Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d
468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010) (applying Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) standards to review under 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). Under Rule
8(a)(2), a complaint must contain a “short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Thus, Rule 8(a)
“imposes legal and factual demands on the
authors of complaints.” 16630 Southfield Ltd.,
P'Ship v. Flagstar Bank, F.S.B., 727
F.3d 502, 503 (6th Cir. 2013).
this pleading standard does not require
“‘detailed factual allegations, ' . . . [a]
pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions' or
‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action, '” is insufficient. Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A
complaint will not “suffice if it tenders ‘naked
assertion[s]' devoid of ‘further factual
enhancement.'” Id. (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Instead, to survive a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule
12(b)(6), “a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter . . . to ‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.'” Id. (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Facial plausibility is
established “when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Id. “The plausibility of an inference depends
on a host of considerations, including common sense and the
strength of competing explanations for the defendant's
conduct.” Flagstar Bank, 727 F.3d at 504
(citations omitted). Further, the Court holds pro se
ain complaints “‘to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'” Garrett
v. Belmont Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't., No. 08-3978,
2010 WL 1252923, at *2 (6th Cir. April 1, 2010) (quoting
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)). This
lenient treatment, however, has limits; “‘courts
should not have to guess at the nature of the claim
asserted.'” Frengler v. Gen. Motors, 482
Fed.Appx. 975, 976-77 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Wells v.
Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989)).
is an inmate at the Ohio State Penitentiary
(“OSP”), a prison located in Mahoning County,
Ohio. (See generally ECF No. 1.) According to the
Complaint, Plaintiff was assaulted by corrections officers
and lieutenants while in segregation at OSP. (Id. at