United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
SOLOMON OLIVER, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
pending before the court are multiple motions by pro se
Plaintiff Kim Wylie-Brown (“Plaintiff” or
“Wylie-Brown”). The first is Plaintiff's
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2); that Motion
is granted. Next is Plaintiff's motion for Declaratory
Judgment and/or Demand for Contempt Order (ECF No. 3).
Finally, Plaintiff filed a Motion and Amended Motion for an
Emergency Ex Parte Injunction asking the court to stop the
Cleveland Municipal Court from evicting her from her
apartment on March 12, 2018 (see ECF Nos. 4 and 5,
respectively). Because the court determines that
Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed for failure to
state a claim upon which relief could be granted, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), each of those motions are
February 6, 2018, Wylie-Brown commenced this action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1986 against
Cleveland Municipal Court Judge Ronald O'Leary
(“O'Leary” or “Defendant”). This
case arises from an eviction proceeding in Cleveland
Municipal Court (Housing Division) case No. 17 CVG 11790
(“State Case”). O'Leary presided over the
State Case. Plaintiff alleges that she and other tenants of
Ambleside Tower Apartments (“Ambleside”)
complained and signed petitions concerning alleged unlawful
activity by the Cleveland Metropolitan Housing Authority
(“CMHA”) officers and employees and, in
retaliation, the CMHA filed the State Case to evict her from
her Ambleside apartment. (Compl., ECF No. 1 ¶¶
State Case docket indicates that Wylie-Brown was active in
her own defense, including making a jury demand and filing a
motion for injunctive relief. She also removed the State Case
to the Northern District of Ohio on September 5, 2017
(Northern District of Ohio (“NDOH”) No. 1:17 CV
1857), but the case was remanded to the Cleveland Municipal
Court (see No. 1:17 CV 1857, ECF Nos. 1, 6). Wylie Brown
appealed the court's remand decision to the United States
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, but the appeal was dismissed
(NDOH No. 1:17 CV 1857, ECF No. 16). (See Compl. ¶¶
then brought a second case in the Northern District of Ohio
(also related to the State Case) - NDOH No. 1:17 CV 1924 -
against Cleveland Municipal Court judges and employees of the
Cleveland Metropolitan Housing Authority. In that case,
Wylie-Brown sought declaratory, monetary, and injunctive
relief claiming that the eviction proceedings in the State
Case violated her federal constitutional rights.
Wylie-Brown's claims for equitable relief were dismissed
pursuant to Younger v. Harris because the State Case remained
pending and, to the extent Plaintiff was seeking damages,
those claims were stayed until conclusion of the State Case
(NDOH No. 1:17 CV 1924, ECF No. 7). Wylie-Brown also appealed
that decision to the United States Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals. The Sixth Circuit dismissed Wylie-Brown's appeal
to the extent she appealed the stay of certain claims, but
permitted her appeal to go forward with respect to the issue
of injunctive relief (NDOH No. 1:17 CV 1924, ECF No. 12)
provided that she pay the filing fee (NDOH No. 1:17 CV 1924,
ECF No. 13).
January 4, 2018, Wylie- Brown filed a Writ of Prohibition in
the Ohio Supreme Court (No. 2018-16) against respondents
O'Leary and the State of Ohio, arguing that O'Leary
lacked jurisdiction over the eviction proceeding (see Compl.
¶¶ 16-17). Respondents filed motions to dismiss,
which were granted on the merits without opinion by the Ohio
Supreme Court. State ex rel. Wylie-Brown v.
O'Leary, 96 N.E.3d 294 (Table) (Ohio Apr. 25, 2018).
the writ of prohibition was pending before the Ohio Supreme
Court, the State Case moved forward. On March 1, 2018, the
Cleveland Municipal Court granted CMHA judgment as to
possession of the premises. Wylie-Brown appealed the eviction
order to the Eighth District Court of Appeals on March 6,
2018 (No. CA-18-106900), but the Eighth District dismissed
the appeal on May 24, 2018, because she failed to properly
file her appeal and trial court record.
was evicted from her apartment on March 12, 2018. On April
10, 2018, CMHA dismissed its second (and last) cause of
action from the State Case, thus concluding the eviction
instant action is the third federal case brought by
Wylie-Brown in connection with the State Case. Plaintiff
alleges that O'Leary violated her federal civil and
constitutional rights in connection with the proceedings in the
State Case. (Compl. ¶ 6 and at 9.) She seeks declaratory
and injunctive relief, and $1 million dollars in damages.
(Id. at 9-10.)
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Standard of Review
pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v.
MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982), federal district
courts are expressly required under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) to screen all in forma pauperis actions and to
dismiss before service any such action that is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. The standard for dismissal
articulated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662
(2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544 (2007) with respect to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) also governs
dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B). Hill v.
Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). Therefore,
in order to survive scrutiny under § 1915(e)(2)(B), a
pro se complaint must set forth sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a plausible claim for relief.
Anson v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 529 Fed.Appx. 558, 559
(6th Cir. 2013) (“Section 1915(e)(2)(B) authorizes
dismissal if the action fails to state a plausible claim for
relief or is frivolous.”).