United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
OPINION AND ORDER
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
se Plaintiff Samuel Wright, Jr. brings this claim
against the Cleveland Police Department, Cleveland Police
Office Sean Gorman and the City of Cleveland. (ECF DKT #1).
In his brief Complaint, Plaintiff states that on June 7,
2017, he was walking on Euclid Avenue and Defendant Gorman
pushed him from behind. Plaintiff asked Gorman why he was
pushed and Gorman responded that Plaintiff was to keep
moving. A verbal exchange occurred and Plaintiff alleges that
Gorman choked him and issued a false citation.
(Id.). Plaintiff filed a complaint with the
Cleveland Police Department but Gorman retired or departed
from the Department before Plaintiff's complaint could be
investigated. (See ECF DKT #1-2).
filed a motion to proceed with this action in forma
pauperis (ECF DKT #2), and that motion is granted.
reasons that follow, this action is dismissed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag
v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982), federal
district courts are expressly required under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) to screen all in forma pauperis
actions and to dismiss before service any such action that is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. The standard for
dismissal articulated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544 (2007) with respect to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) also
governs dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B). Hill v.
Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). In order
to survive scrutiny under § 1915(e)(2)(B), a pro
se complaint must set forth sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a plausible claim for relief.
Anson v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 529 Fed.Appx. 558, 559
(6th Cir. 2013) (“Section 1915(e)(2)(B) authorizes
dismissal if the action fails to state a plausible claim for
relief or is frivolous.”).
and documents filed by pro se litigants are held to
a less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
That said, pro se plaintiffs must still satisfy
basic pleading requirements and the Court is not required to
conjure allegations on their behalf. See Erwin v.
Edwards, 22 Fed.Appx. 579, 580 (6th Cir. 2001)
(citations omitted). A pleading must contain a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief, and must provide more than “an
accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A
pleading that offers nothing more than legal conclusions or a
simple recitation of the elements of a cause of action does
not satisfy the pleading standard. Id.
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
set forth facts that, when construed favorably, establish (1)
the deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or
laws of the United States (2) caused by a person acting under
the color of state law.” Sigley v. City of Parma
Heights, 437 F.3d 527, 533 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988)).
Defendant Cleveland Police Department is Dismissed
Cleveland Police Department is not a legal entity capable of
being sued. Johnson v. Elyria Police Dep't, No.
1:06 CV 1912, 2006 WL 3420188, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 27,
2006) (Police Departments are not sui juris and therefore
cannot sue or be sued.) (citations omitted). Accordingly,
Plaintiff fails to state a plausible § 1983 claim
against the Cleveland Police Department and the Department is
dismissed from this action pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Defendant City of Cleveland is Dismissed
respect to defendant City of Cleveland, local governments may
not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an injury
inflicted solely by employees or agents under a respondeat
superior theory of liability. See Monell v. Department of
Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691(1978). “Instead, it
is when execution of a government's policy or custom,
whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or
acts may fairly be said to represent official policy,
inflicts the injury that the government as an entity is
responsible under § 1983.” Id. at 694. A
municipality may, therefore, be held liable when it
unconstitutionally “implements or executes a policy
statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially
adopted by that body's officers.” Id. at
690; DePiero v. City of Macedonia, 180 F .3d 770,
786 (6th Cir. 1999).
state a claim for relief against a municipality under §
1983, Plaintiff must: (1) identify the municipal policy or
custom, (2) connect the policy to the municipality, and (3)
show that his particular injury was incurred due to execution
of that policy. Alkire v. Irving, 330 F.3d 802, 815
(6th Cir. 2003). Here, there are no allegations in that
Complaint that identify a custom or policy of the City of
Cleveland that caused him injury. Rather, Plaintiff's
allegations center entirely on the actions of defendant
Gorman. This is ...