Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Reed v. Mohr

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

July 30, 2019

LASHAUN REED, Plaintiff,
v.
GARY MOHR, et al., Defendants.

          James L. Graham Judge

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          KIMBERLY A. JOLSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGGE.

         This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8). For the reasons that follow, it is RECOMMENDED that the Motion be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff Lashaun Reed is a pro se prisoner incarcerated in Toledo Correctional Institution. Defendants are Gary Mohr, the former Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”); Jeff Noble, the Warden of Madison Correctional Institution (“MCI”); and Captain Alexander, an ODRC employee at MCI. Plaintiff alleges:

[O]n[e] day Capt. Alexander got called to my cell because I was trying to hang myself. I told him I was suicid[al] at the moment when they open[ed] my door. They took me out of my cell and put me in AA shower. They took everything out of my cell and put me back in there with a gown on and my boxer[s]. They He [sic] didn't … put me on watch. Then I cut my wrist with a sharp object then they put me on watch after I did that. I was going thru something that day. Because [they failed] to put me on watch because I was trying to take my life that they felt like it wasn't their concern for my safe[ty]. This falls under the[ir] 67-MHN-09 suicide prevention[.]

(Doc. 3 at 3-4). Plaintiff requests that the Court “find [Defendants] accountable for the[ir] actions in this matter” and award him “a reason[able] amount of money” to “pay for the emotion[al] stress and failure to do the[ir] job.”

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” to survive a motion to dismiss. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663-64, 678 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). In reviewing the complaint, a court must construe it in favor of the plaintiff and accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Id. at 57. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (emphasis added) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

         On the other hand, a complaint that consists of “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” is insufficient. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; see also Brown v. Matauszak, 415 Fed.Appx. 608, 613 (6th Cir. 2011) (noting that a plaintiff must give specific, well-pleaded facts, not just conclusory allegations). In other words, while “detailed factual allegations” are not required under Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)'s “short and plain statement” rule, the law “demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-78 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555) (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)).

         III. DISCUSSION

         Plaintiff brings a deliberate indifference claim against Defendants. (Doc. 3 at 3-4). Liberally construing the Complaint, the Undersigned assumes that Plaintiff intended to sue Defendants in their official and individual capacities. See Arauz v. Bell, 307 Fed.Appx. 923, 927 n.2 (6th Cir. 2009) (“Arauz's complaint does not state whether he is suing the defendants in their official or individual capacities. However, construing this pro se pleading liberally, we assume that Arauz intended to sue them in both their official and individual capacities.”).

         According to Plaintiff, Defendant Alexander was called to his cell because he was trying to hang himself; he informed Defendant Alexander that he was suicidal; Defendant Alexander removed him from the cell; Defendant Alexander removed everything in the cell except an unidentified sharp object; Defendant Alexander placed him back in the cell with the unidentified sharp object; Defendant Alexander did not place him on suicide watch; and he subsequently attempted suicide again by slashing his wrist with the unidentified sharp object. (Doc. 3 at 3-4).

         A. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.