United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
L. Graham Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGGE.
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.
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
[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
(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.”
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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).
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)).
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.”).
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).