United States District Court, N.D. Ohio
OPINON & ORDER
S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
se plaintiff Stephen Walker, a prisoner currently
incarcerated in the Ohio State Penitentiary, has filed this
civil rights action against corrections officers and other
staff at the Mansfield Correction Institution where he was
previously incarcerated. (Doc. No. 1.) His complaint names
the following defendants: Corrections Officers J. Hristovski,
J. Carden, and Albright, Unit Manager Michaels, Case Manager
Henry, Lieutenant Wolfe, and “E. Putt.”
(Id. at 1, 3.)
plaintiff alleges he had an encounter with Officer Hristovski
on September 6, 2018, during which Officer Hristovski
threatened him, destroyed his religious property, including
tossing his Qu'ran in the toilet, and then accused the
plaintiff of spitting on him. He alleges he was placed on
suicide watch following this incident, and after his release,
was assaulted and severely beaten by Officers Hristovski,
Carden, and Albright and Lieutenant Wolfe in retaliation, and
his legal work and religious items were again destroyed. He
alleges that after his request to speak to a “white
shirt” was denied, he popped the sprinklers in his
cell, allegedly “because this was the only way to speak
directly with the white shirt.” (Id. at 6.)
But when the “white shirt” arrived, he blatantly
stated to the plaintiff that he did not care about the
plaintiff's property and that “[the plaintiff] spit
on one of mines and we are going to come in there and put you
face down inside of that water and say you resisted until you
drown.” (Id.) The plaintiff alleges he was
then forced to sleep on a wet floor without blankets or heat
and had to smear feces on his body to stay warm.
(Id. at 6-7.) “Mental health services came to
talk to [him]” several days later, but “did not
seem to care, ” and he was “cleared off suicide
watch and put back into [his] cell where after 3 days [he]
was finally given stuff to clean [his] cell and bed and
blankets.” (Id. at 7.)
that the defendants violated his constitutional rights, he
seeks declaratory relief and damages. With his complaint, the
plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma
pauperis, which has been granted by separate order.
the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the
Court must screen his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e). That statute requires the Court to dismiss before
service any portion of the plaintiff's complaint that the
Court determines is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Hill v.
Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 471 (6th Cir. 2010). In conducting
this review, the Court must read the plaintiff's pro
se complaint indulgently, see Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and accept his allegations as true
unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible.
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
Nonetheless, the Court is not required to conjure allegations
on his behalf or construct claims for him. See Martin v.
Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 714 (6th Cir. 2014). In order to
withstand a dismissal for failure to state a claim, the
plaintiff's complaint must set forth sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief against
each defendant that is plausible on its face. See
Hill, 630 F.3d at 471 (citing Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).
review, the Court finds that the plaintiff's complaint
must be dismissed as against defendants Michaels, Henry, and
“E. Putt” for failure to state a claim. The
plaintiff does not set forth any discernible allegations of
misconduct on the part of these defendants in his complaint,
or discernible allegations connecting them to the conditions
or misconduct he alleges. A plaintiff cannot establish the
individual liability of any defendant for constitutional
violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 absent allegations
showing that the defendant was personally involved in the
conduct which forms the basis of his claims. See Rizzo v.
Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). “Claims
against governmental officials alleged to arise from
violations of constitutional rights cannot be founded upon
conclusory, vague or general allegations, but must instead,
allege facts that show the existence of the asserted
constitutional rights violation recited in the complaint and
what each defendant did to violate the asserted
right.” Terrance v. Northville Reg'l
Psychiatric Hosp., 286 F.3d 834, 842 (6th Cir 2002)
(emphasis in original). To state a claim, “a plaintiff
must plead that each Government-official defendant, through
the official's own individual actions, has violated the
Constitution.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676.
plaintiff's allegations with respect to defendants
Michaels, Henry, and “E. Putt” are either
non-existent, or are too vague and conclusory to meet basic
pleading requirements or suggest plausible claims. See
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
Court, however, will allow the plaintiff's action to go
forward against the remaining defendants -- Officers
Hristovski, Carden, Albright, and Lieutenant Wolfe. The
plaintiff has set forth allegations in his complaint with
respect to these defendants sufficient to suggest at least
plausible Eighth Amendment claims.
this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
as against defendants Michaels, Henry, and “E.
Putt.” The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this dismissal could not be
taken in good faith.
action shall proceed only as against defendants Hristovski,
Carden, Albright, and Wolfe. Within 20 days of the date of
this Order, plaintiff shall submit to the Clerk's Office
completed U.S. Marshal 285 forms and completed summons forms
for each of the remaining defendants. Upon receipt, the
Clerk's Office shall forward the appropriate documents to
the U.S. Marshal for service ...