United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER
SOLOMON OLIVER, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Se Plaintiff Ronnie Woodall, Jr., a detainee in the
Cuyahoga County Jail, has filed an in forma pauperis civil
rights Complaint in this matter seeking damages and other
relief against multiple Cuyahoga County officials and
employees, including Armond Budish, Ken Mills, Eric Ivey,
Emily McNeeley, Douglas Dykes, and Clifford Pickney. (Doc.
No. 1.) In his Complaint, Plaintiff objects to numerous
alleged conditions in the Jail, contending they subject him
to cruel and unusual punishment. He complains he is not being
provided adequate medical care and that numerous other
inhumane conditions generally exist in the Jail, including
unsanitary food trays, black mold, and asbestos. In addition,
he complains there is no law library and that inmates have
inadequate access to large muscle recreation, lawyers, and
family due to “red zoning.” (Id. at
federal courts are obligated to construe pro se complaints
liberally, see Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383
(6th Cir. 2011), such principles are not without
limits. See Young Bok Song v. Gipson, 423 Fed.Appx.
506, 510 (6th Cir. 2011). Plaintiffs proceeding
pro se must still meet basic pleading requirements, and
courts are not required to “conjure allegations on
[their] behalf.” Erwin v. Edwards, 22
Fed.Appx. 579, 580 (6th Cir. 2001).
Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 103-134, 110 Stat.
1321 (1996), requires a district court to dismiss before
service any prisoner action seeking redress from “a
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental
entity” if the complaint is frivolous or malicious,
fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted, or
seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such
relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. To survive a
dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915A,
“a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Hill v. Lappin, 630
F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010) (holding that the
dismissal standard articulated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) governs dismissals under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A).
review, the court finds the Plaintiff's Complaint must be
Plaintiff does not set forth allegations specifically
connecting any defendant to the unconstitutional conditions
or misconduct he alleges, and it is well established that
supervisory officials cannot be liable for constitutional
violations of subordinates under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 solely
on the basis of respondeat superior. A plaintiff cannot
establish the individual liability of any defendant for
constitutional violations absent allegations showing that
each defendant was personally involved in the conduct which
forms the basis of his claims. “Because vicarious
liability is inapplicable to . . . § 1983 suits, 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. Accordingly, where, as here, individuals are merely
named as defendants in a civil rights action without
supporting allegations of specific conduct in the body of the
complaint, the complaint is subject to dismissal even under
the liberal construction afforded to pro se plaintiffs.
See Gilmore v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 92 Fed.Appx. 188,
190 (6th Cir. 2004) (“Merely listing names in the
caption of the complaint and alleging constitutional
violations in the body of the complaint is not enough to
sustain recovery under §1983"); Frazier v.
Michigan, 41 Fed.Appx. 762, 764 (6th Cir. 2002)
(affirming dismissal of complaint that did not allege with
any degree of specificity which of the named defendants were
personally involved in or responsible for each alleged
violation of federal rights).
Plaintiff has not plead facts sufficient to raise a claim
against Cuyahoga County under Monell v. Dept. of Soc.
Servs., 436 U.S. 3 (1978) for unconstitutional acts
resulting in his injury as a result of an unconstitutional
policy or custom.
the Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. The court further certifies, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal ...