United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
WILLIAM E. MARTIN, Plaintiff,
ROGER WILSON, et al., Defendants.
Vascura Magistrate Judge
OPINION & ORDER
ALGENON L. MARBLEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Objection (ECF
No. 4) to the Magistrate Judge's May 15, 2018 Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 3), recommending that the Court
dismiss this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Upon independent review, and for the
reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's Objection is hereby
OVERRULED, and the Court
ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation. This case is dismissed.
William Martin is a state inmate. (ECF No. 1). Defendants are
various individuals associated with the Ohio Department of
Rehabilitation and Correction and Madison Correctional
Institution. (Id.). Plaintiff's claim is
comprised of two issues.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Alexander disposed of
Plaintiff's property, declaring it to be trash.
(Id. at 7). Neither Defendant Alexander nor any
other Defendant gave an explanation as to why Plaintiff's
property was designated as trash. (Id.). In
response, Plaintiff filed three Informal Complaint
Resolutions (ICRs) to the Deputy Warden of Operations,
Defendant Heard, which Plaintiff alleges went unaddressed.
Plaintiff subsequently filed an ICR with Defendant Brown, and
later a Theft and Loss (T) Report. Plaintiff then attempted
to file a grievance form but was barred from doing so due to
a mandated time limit, which Plaintiff contends was
unconstitutional due to the principle of equitable tolling.
(Id. at 7-8). Plaintiff attempted to file a
grievance with Defendant Bratton, the Assistant Chief
Inspector, but Defendant Bratton's decision to
“refuse to resolve the grievance” was
“frivolous.” (Id. at 8-9). Next,
Plaintiff alleges that three fellow inmates stole over $600
worth of Plaintiff's property. (Id. at 11). At
no time, according to Plaintiff, did relevant Defendants
investigate this theft, despite Plaintiff having reported it
via ICRs and grievances. (Id. at 12-13).
filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma
pauperis on May 11, 2018. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff then
filed a Complaint on May 15, 2018, naming 18 defendants and
requesting declaratory judgment, a preliminary and a
permanent injunction, compensatory damages, punitive damages,
and court costs and attorney's fees. (ECF No. 2 at
16). Plaintiff brings his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
contending that this Court has jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 because of the DRC's dismantling of
post-deprivation remedies and the grievance procedure.
Judge Vascura filed a Report and Recommendation on May 15,
2018, recommending that the Court dismiss this action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state
a claim on which relief may be granted. (ECF No. 3 at 1). The
Report and Recommendation also granted Plaintiff's motion
to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(1) and (2). (ECF No. 3 at 2).
Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff's claim should
be dismissed because Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted per Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). (ECF No. 3
at 5). Specifically, the Magistrate Judge found that
Plaintiff failed to allege sufficiently the inadequacy of the
remedies available under Ohio law, resulting in the failure
to state a claim. (Id.). Further, the Magistrate
Judge found that Plaintiff's discussion of the handling
of his grievances fails to state a claim for which relief can
be granted because there is no inherent constitutional right
to an effective grievance procedure. (ECF No. 3 at 7). Thus,
the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court dismiss
Plaintiff's claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No.
4) on May 23, 2018. Plaintiff responds to the Report and
Recommendation by explaining that in order sufficiently to
state a claim that is plausible on its face, “[t]he
only thing the plaintiff is required to plead and prove is
that the state remedies are inadequate.” (ECF No. 4 at
2) (citing Vicory v. Walton, 721 F.2d 1062, 1065-66
(6th Cir. 1983)). Plaintiff contends that the grievance
process is a post-deprivation remedy that, “makes it
unnecessary in many cases to file a claim in either the Ohio
Court of Claims or Court of Common Pleas.”
(Id.). Thus, Plaintiff concludes that he has
exhausted and proven inadequate state post-deprivation
remedies and has stated a claim.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
enacted 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to “lower judicial access
barriers to the indigent”, though Congress also
recognized that plaintiffs proceeding in forma
pauperis lacked “an economic incentive to refrain
from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive suits.”
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). To
counter this possibility, Congress ...