United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
OPINION AND ORDER
Christopher A. Boyko United States District Judge.
se Plaintiff Cassandra Hess filed this action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against Judge Leslie Celebreeze,
Magistrate Scott Kitson and Magistrate Patrick Kelly
(collectively, “Defendants”). In the Complaint,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated her constitutional
rights under the Fourteenth and Sixth Amendments and to due
process and equal protection of the law. (ECF DKT #1 at 3).
Also before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to proceed
in forma pauperis (ECF DKT #2), which is granted.
reasons that follow, this action is dismissed.
to the Complaint, Judge Leslie Celebreeze is a Domestic
Relations judge in Cuyahoga County and Scott Kitson and
Patrick Kelly are Domestic Relations magistrates in Cuyahoga
County. (ECF DKT #1 at 2). In her brief Complaint, Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants “are acting maliciously and
corruptly, ” that she is being harassed and the
Defendants are depriving her of due process, equal protection
and civil rights. Plaintiff claims that Judge Celebreeze
“is not being unbiase[d]” and made statements in
pre-trial hearings that suggest the Judge had already made
her decision as to the outcome of the proceedings and that
Plaintiff's motions were not answered. Plaintiff also
claims that Magistrate Scott Kitson “screams and
yells” at her in an attempt to intimidate her and that
the Defendants are committing judicial misconduct.
(Id. at 4). Plaintiff seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief, requesting that she be treated fairly,
receive due process, her civil rights not be violated and
that the Defendants be removed from “my case.”
With respect to her daughter “Sernity Hess, ”
Plaintiff asks “that its handled in [Juvenile] Court
and that all parties involved be held accountable for [their]
actions for violating my Civil Rights.” (Id.
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 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)). 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.”).
pro se pleadings are held to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, pro
se plaintiffs must still satisfy basic pleading
requirements and the Court is not required to conjure
allegations on their behalf. See Erwin v. Edwards,
22 Fed.Appx. 579, 580 (6th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). A
pleading must contain a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and
must provide more than “an unadorned,
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
Plaintiff's § 1983 Claim is Dismissed
and magistrates are absolutely immune from civil suits for
money damages, except in limited circumstances not alleged
here. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991);
Barnes v. Winchell, 105 F.3d 1111, 1115-16 (6th Cir.
1997) (collecting cases). To the extent that Plaintiff seeks
money damages, Defendants are absolutely immune from suit and
this case is dismissed pursuant to § 1915(e) on that
extent that Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory
relief, Plaintiff fails to state a plausible claim upon which
relief can be granted and, in any event, the Court may not
interfere with state court proceedings or entertain an appeal
of state court decisions.
Plaintiff fails to state a plausible § 1983 claim
claims against Defendants consist of the conclusory
statements that they acted “maliciously and corruptly,
” are harassing Plaintiff, are biased and unethical,
have deprived her of due process and equal protection and are
committing judicial misconduct. (ECF DKT #1 at 4). Her only