United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER [RESOLVING ECF NO. 10
Y. Pearson United States District Judge
is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10).
The Court has been advised, having reviewed the record, the
parties' briefs,  and the applicable law. For the reasons
set forth below, the motion is denied.
is an inmate at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility in
Lucasville, Ohio. He was previously incarcerated at the
Trumbull Correctional Institution (“TCI”) in
Leavittsburg, Ohio, where the alleged events took place.
Defendants Capt. Michael Wadolowski and J. Lewis are
Correctional Officers at TCI. Complaint (ECF No. 1)
at PageID #: 3.
evening of October 21, 2016, Capt. Wadolowski escorted
Plaintiff from his cell to the Transitional Placement Unit
(“TPU”). ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 3. Capt.
Wadolowski was accompanied by C.O. Lewis. ECF No. 1 at
PageID #: 4. Plaintiff was handcuffed with his hands
behind his back. ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 3.
alleges that Capt. Wadolowski was immediately aggressive.
Capt. Wadolowski challenged Plaintiff, asking: “You
think you are a tough guy yelling out the doors, huh?”
ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 3. As Capt. Wadolowski
escorted Plaintiff towards the sallyport exit doors, he
shoved Plaintiff into the door with his knee. ECF No. 1
at PageID #: 3-4. Plaintiff, still handcuffed, was
unable to protect himself and the left side of his face
struck a steel door. Upon reaching the second door, Capt.
Wadolowski again shoved Plaintiff, pushing the door open with
Plaintiff's body. ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 4.
alleges the abuse continued outside. Capt. Wadolowski tossed
Plaintiff over his hip, throwing Plaintiff down onto his
back. Capt. Wadolowski rolled Plaintiff face-down, pressing
his face into the ground. He pressed his thumbs into
Plaintiff's neck, attempting to hit pressure points to
cause pain and limit Plaintiff's breathing. Other
Correctional Officers hurried over, and C.O. Lewis pulled
Plaintiff back to his feet. Capt. Wadolowski announced to the
other officers that Plaintiff may try to spit at them. When
Plaintiff turned his head to speak to other inmates
witnessing the incident, C.O. Lewis threw him to the ground
again. Plaintiff landed on his left side, hitting his face,
chest and shoulder on the ground. The officers pulled
Plaintiff back to his feet, causing him more pain to his
elbow and hyperextending his shoulders. ECF No. 1 at
PageID #: 4.
made repeated demands to be taken to medical due to pain in
his elbow, back, face, jaw, and neck. Medical staff examined
Plaintiff's head and instructed the officers to bring
Plaintiff to the TPU. Later that evening, two officers
visited Plaintiff in the TPU and photographed his injuries.
After further requests from Plaintiff, a nurse came to clean
and dress his wounds. After being treated, Plaintiff was
returned to his cell. Plaintiff requested and received mental
health treatment following the incident as well. He has had
approximately 5 mental health appointments related to the
incident. ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 4.
made a “Use of Force” written statement on
October 22, 2016 while in the TPU. ECF No. 1 at PageID #:
4. Having received no formal response after two weeks,
Plaintiff sent his complaint on to Deputy Warden Bowen and
was told his grievance had been denied. Plaintiff then filed
another grievance with Chief Inspector Frederick, which was
also denied. He filed an appeal to the Chief Inspector of the
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections, but
received no response as of the filing of the complaint with
this Court. ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 2.
was found guilty of violating several rules by the Rules
Infraction Board. ECF No. 1-4 at PageID #: 14-16. He
appealed the ruling to the Warden. His appeal was denied.
ECF No. 1-4 at PageID #: 17.
number of inmates witnessed the incident and filed affidavits
in support of Plaintiff's version of events. See ECF
No. 1-4 at PageID #: 37-39. Additionally, Plaintiff
claims the incident was captured on video, but he was
informed by the Rules Infraction Board that no video footage
had been saved for review. ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 5;
ECF No. 1-4 at PageID #: 14.
Standard of Review
deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6), the Court must take all well-pleaded
allegations in the complaint as true and construe those
allegations in a light most favorable to the plaintiff.
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)
(citations omitted). A cause of action fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted when it lacks
“plausibility in th[e] complaint.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 564. A pleading must contain a
“short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 677-78 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)).
Plaintiff is not required to include detailed factual
allegations, but must provide more than “an unadorned,
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Id.
at 678. A pleading that offers “labels and
conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Nor does a complaint
suffice if it tenders “naked assertion[s]” devoid
of “further factual enhancement.” Id. at
557. It must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted
as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.” Id. at 570. “A claim has
facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The plausibility standard is
not akin to a “probability requirement, ” but it
asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has
acted unlawfully. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556. When a
complaint pleads facts that are “merely consistent
with” a defendant's liability, it “stops
short of the line between possibility and plausibility of
‘entitlement to relief.'” Id. at 557
(brackets omitted). “[When] the well-pleaded facts do
not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility
of misconduct, the complaint has alleged-but it has not
‘show[n]'-‘that the pleader is entitled to
relief.'” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quoting
Rule 8(a)(2)). The Court “need not accept as
true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation or an
unwarranted factual inference.” Handy-Clay v. City
of Memphis, Tenn., 695 F.3d 531, 539 (6th Cir. 2012)
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).