United States District Court, N.D. Ohio
Dorian L. Brown, Plaintiff,
Armond Budish, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER
PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
se plaintiff Dorian L. Brown, a detainee in the Cuyahoga
County Jail, filed this in forma pauperis civil
rights action against multiple Cuyahoga County officials and
jail employees, including Armond Budish, Ken Mills, Eric
Ivey, Emily McNeeley, Douglas Dykes, and Clifford Pickney.
(Doc. No. 1.) He seeks damages and injunctive relief on the
basis of conditions he alleges existed in the Jail when he
was previously incarcerated there, and which he contends were
inhumane and subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment.
He alleges he had “to breathe in asbestos and black
mold”; “eat food off of trays that smelled like
feces [and] had old water in them”; “take showers
in a contaminated shower which had black mold”; and
“sleep on the floor for months and endure red zone
where [he] couldn't contact [his] family or
attorney.” In addition, he alleges he “was denied
mental health and medical treatment.” (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 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” that the Court determines 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 that the plaintiff's complaint
must be dismissed pursuant to § 1915A.
plaintiff's complaint does not set forth allegations
suggesting that or how any of the named defendants was
personally involved in or responsible for the Jail conditions
of which he complains. A plaintiff cannot establish the
individual liability of any defendant for violations of his
constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 absent
allegations showing that each defendant was personally
involved in the activities which form the basis of his
claims. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976);
Mullins v. Hainesworth, No. 95-3186, 1995 WL 559381
(6th Cir. Sept. 20, 1995). See also Terrance v.
Northville Regional Psychiatric Hosp., 286 F.3d 834, 842
(6th Mich. 2002) (“damage 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”).
Accordingly, where, as here, individuals are named as
defendants in a civil rights action without supporting
allegations of specific conduct against them 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).
conclusory allegations are insufficient to state a civil
rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 678. The plaintiff's allegations are
conclusory, and do not support a plausible inference that he
suffered the kind of extreme deprivation required to sustain
a cognizable, constitutional conditions-of-confinement claim.
See, e.g., Lamb v. Howe, 677 Fed.Appx. 204, 208
(6th Cir. 2017) (a plaintiff can successfully
bring a § 1983 conditions-of-confinement claim only by
demonstrating that he suffered a condition or deprivation
that was “objectively, sufficiently serious to require
constitutional protection, ” and that the defendant
being sued subjectively acted with deliberate indifference).
this action 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 ...