United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
C. NUGENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
se Plaintiff Walter Harris filed the above-captioned
action against Cuyahoga County Sheriff Clifford Pinkney. In
the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges he was wrongfully detained
by the Cuyahoga County Sheriffs Department for 435 days
pending trial. He seeks compensation for "mental abuse,
undistress [sic], miscarriage of justice, [and] unlawful
detainment." (ECFNo. 1 at 5).
and Procedural Background
2015, Plaintiff was charged in the Cuyahoga County Court of
Common Pleas with nine counts of rape, eight counts of
kidnaping, six counts of sexual battery, four counts of gross
sexual imposition, and one count of attempted rape of his
girlfriend's minor daughter. The offenses occurred
between March 1, 2012 and June 2014. Towards the end of
December 2014, the minor victim reported the abuse to police.
Detective Cindy Bazilius interviewed her and as a result of
that interview secured and executed a search warrant for
Plaintiffs house. Plaintiff was subsequently arrested and
charged in a 28 count indictment. He was tried in Cuayhoga
County in April 2016, but the jury was unable to reach a
verdict. He was found guilty after his second trial in May
2016 and was sentenced to eleven years in prison.
after his arrest in Cuyahoga County, Plaintiff was arrested
on an outstanding warrant from California dating back to July
1, 1991. Plaintiff claims California executed the fugitive
warrant on April 28, 2017. He states he was tried in
California on December 6, 2017. His attorney argued the
statute of limitations expired. Plaintiff does not indicate
what happened to these charges. He seeks compensation for
pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag
v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam);
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the
Court is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis
action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) if it fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted, or if it lacks an
arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d
1196 (6th Cir. 1990); Sistrunk v. City of
Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996). A claim
lacks an arguable basis in law or fact when it is premised on
an indisputably meritless legal theory or when the factual
contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S.
of action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted when it lacks "plausibility in the
Complaint." BellAtl Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 564 (2007). A pleading must contain a "short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009). The factual allegations in the
pleading must be sufficient to raise the right to relief
above the speculative level on the assumption that all the
allegations in the Complaint are true. Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555. The Plaintiff is not required to include
detailed factual allegations, but must provide more than
"an unadorned, the Defendant unlawfully harmed me
accusation." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pleading
that offers legal conclusions or a simple recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not meet this pleading
standard. Id. In reviewing a Complaint, the Court
must construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the
Plaintiff. Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 151
F.3d 559, 561 (6th Cir. 1998)
initial matter, Plaintiff indicates the Sheriff violated his
Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying him
a fair trial. He states the Sheriff failed to take him before
a magistrate to see if his arrest was lawful; however, he
does not specify if he was referring to his initial arrest in
Cuyahoga County or his subsequent arrest on the outstanding
warrant from California. He states, again without
explanation, that he paid counsel and expert witnesses and
states he was wrongfully detained by the Sheriff. He does not
allege facts to suggest what he payment of attorney and
witness fees has to do with the any action by the Sheriff. To
meet basic notice pleading requirements, the Complaint must
give the Defendant fair notice of what the Plaintiffs claims
are and the grounds upon which they rest. Bassett v.
National Collegiate Athletic Ass % 528 F.3d 426, 437
(6th Cir. 2008); Lillard v. Shelby County Bd. of Educ,
16 F.3d 716, 726 (6th Cir. 1996). This Complaint does
not contain sufficient facts to suggest this Defendant
violated Plaintiffs constitutional rights.
Plaintiff states he was wrongfully incarcerated. To the
extent Plaintiff is attempting to assert claims of false
arrest or false imprisonment, they are also dismissed. Both
of those causes of action are state tort claims, which are
not cognizable in federal civil rights action. Seaton v.
Sova, No. 1:08-cv-1131, 2009 WL 2132728, *7 (W.D.Mich.
July 10, 2009). Supplemental jurisdiction exists whenever
state law and federal law claims derive from the same nucleus
of operative facts and when considerations of judicial
economy dictate having a single trial. United Mine
Workers of America v. Gihbs, 383 U.S. 715, 724 (1966).
The Court, however, may exercise discretion in hearing state
law matters. Id. at 726. In cases where the federal
law claims are dismissed before trial, the state law claims
should also be dismissed. Id. Having dismissed
Plaintiffs federal law claims, this Court declines
jurisdiction to hear any state law claims Plaintiff may be
attempting to assert.
this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e).
The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3),
that an appeal from ...