United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
AARON POLSTER JUDGE
se Plaintiff Adonis Holman brings this action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Sheriff Clifford
Pinkney and Warden Eric Ivey in their official capacities
regarding conditions at the Cuyahoga County Jail where, at
the time this action was filed, Plaintiff was a pretrial
detainee. (Doc. #: 1). After the Complaint was filed,
Plaintiff advised the Court that he was transferred to the
Lake Erie Correctional Institution in Conneaut, Ohio. (Doc.
#: 4). Plaintiff asks this Court for peace, justice, and One
Million Dollars. (Doc. #: 1 at 5).
reasons that follow, this case is dismissed.
Standard of Review
se pleadings are held to a less stringent standards than
pleadings drafted by lawyers, and must be liberally
construed. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972) (per curiam). That said, federal district courts are
expressly required by 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 Atl. 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) for failure to state a
claim. Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th
Cir. 2010). In order to survive scrutiny under §
1915(e)(2)(B), a pro se complaint “‘must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state
a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.'”
Id. (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).
Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief are
Court construes Plaintiff's request for the relief of
peace and justice as a request for injunctive relief. It is
well settled that upon a prisoner's transfer to another
institution, his request for injunctive relief concerning the
prison facility where he was previously confined becomes
moot. Colvin v. Caruso, 605 F.3d 282, 289 (6th Cir.
2010) (“[A]ny declaratory or injunctive relief that
Colvin seeks stemming from his complaint has been mooted by
his transfer to a different prison facility.”).
Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief
against defendants are moot because he is no longer confined
at the Cuyahoga County Jail, and are dismissed.
Plaintiff's official capacity claims against defendants
extent that Plaintiff seeks monetary relief, those claims are
not moot because of his transfer to a different institution.
See Id. (considering claim for monetary damages for
alleged constitutional violation notwithstanding transfer to
a different prison facility). A sheriff or other county
official acts on behalf of the county he represents. See
Newman v. Evans, 2009 WL 814616, at *5 (E.D. Mich. Mar.
27, 2009) (citing Monell v. Dep't of Soc.
Servs., 436 U.S 658, 690 n.55 (1978)). Plaintiff's
claims against defendants in their official capacities are
equivalent to pleading an action against Cuyahoga County.
See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-66 (1985)
(official capacity suits are not against the county official
personally, “for the real party in interest is the
entity”) (citations omitted). Cuyahoga County is liable
under § 1983 for the alleged deprivation of
Plaintiff's constitutional rights only when the County is
the “moving force” behind the deprivation.
Id. at 166. In order to prevail on a § 1983
action against Cuyahoga County, Plaintiff must show that the
alleged violation of his federal rights occurred because of a
County policy or custom. Id.; Monell, 436
U.S. at 694.
Complaint does not contain any allegations concerning a
County custom or policy, nor does Plaintiff allege that any
custom or policy of Cuyahoga County caused the claimed
deprivation of his constitutional rights. Therefore,
Plaintiff fails to allege plausible § 1983 official
capacity claims against Pinkney and Ivey, and those claims
are dismissed pursuant to § 1915(e).
of the foregoing reasons, this action is dismissed pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Plaintiffs motion to proceed
in forma pauperis is granted. (Doc. #: 2).
Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3),
that an appeal from this decision ...