United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER
[Resolving ECF Nos. 1, 5]
Y. Pearson United States District Judge.
se Plaintiff Dennis Holt is a state prisoner presently
incarcerated at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
(“SOCF”). ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 2. He brings
this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
defendants Lt. Bright and Warden Assistant Horton
(collectively, “Defendants”) regarding events
that occurred at the Ohio State Penitentiary
(“OSP”) before he was transferred to SOCF.
See id. at PageID #: 2, 6.
reasons that follow, this action is dismissed.
alleges that Defendant Bright violated his constitutional
rights when Bright denied him email access by placing him on
kiosk restriction from September 2018 to March 2019, and by
placing him on a 60-day telephone restriction. Id.
at PageID #: 3. Plaintiff states that the restrictions
imposed by Bright violated Ohio Department of Rehabilitation
and Corrections (“ODRC”) policy, which provides
for telephone and kiosk restrictions when a prisoner abuses
his privileges. Id. at PageID #: 3-4.
Plaintiff states he did not abuse those privileges, so the
restrictions were improperly imposed. Id. Plaintiff
claims that because of these email and telephone
restrictions, he was unable to grieve with his son regarding
the death of his son's mother, causing mental and
physical distress. See id. at PageID#: 5. Plaintiff
does not contend, however, that he was deprived of all
communication with the outside world during the limited
period of time his email and telephone access were
contends in conclusory fashion that Bright imposed these
restrictions maliciously and sadistically to cause him harm
unrelated to the safety and security of the institution,
constituting cruel and unusual punishment and violating his
rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution. Id. at
PageID #: 4. Plaintiff further alleges that he brought his
concerns about Bright's alleged unconstitutional conduct
to Warden Assistant Horton, but Horton agreed with
Bright's actions, thus denying Plaintiff an impartial
appeal. Id. at PageID #: 4-5.
further alleges that he was sent from the OSP to the SOCF on
May 21, 2019 to “discourage me from this civil
action” and to silence him from speaking about the
deprivation of his civil rights. Id. at PageID #: 6.
Plaintiff alleges no facts to support his conclusory claim
that his transfer from OSP to SOCF was connected to the
exercise of his constitutional rights.
claims that at the SOCF, his email and telephone privileges
have not been restored and it is “reasonable to
infer” that these restrictions are a continuation of
the violation of his constitutional rights that occurred at
OSP. Id. Plaintiff further alleges that at SOCF he
was placed in segregation on June 5, 2019 for
“exaggerated conduct reports” and has remained
there “for days” with limited privileges.
Id. Plaintiff does not name in the Complaint or
identify the individuals at SOCF that are allegedly
responsible for the claimed conduct. Plaintiff repeatedly
alleges that prison officials took these actions in
retaliation against him. See id.
filed a supplement to the Complaint that briefly reiterates
the allegations in the Complaint and attaches the ODRC
policies that he contends Defendants violated. ECF No.
5. For relief, Plaintiff asks this Court to declare that
Defendants violated his constitutional rights and to award
him One Million Dollars from each Defendant. ECF No.
1 at PageID #: 7.
Standard of Review
se pleadings are liberally construed by the Court.
Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per
curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
Notwithstanding, the district court is required under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to review all in forma
pauperis complaints and to dismiss before service any
such complaint that the Court determines is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. See Hill v. Lappin, 630
F.3d 468, 470 (6th Cir. 2010). While some latitude must be
extended to pro se plaintiffs with respect to their
pleadings, the Court is not required to conjure unpleaded
facts or construct claims against defendants on behalf of a
pro se plaintiff. See Grinter v. Knight,
532 F.3d 567, 577 (6th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted);
Thomas v. Brennan, No. 1:18 CV 1312, 2018 WL
3135939, at *1 (N.D. Ohio June 26, 2018) (citing Beaudett
v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1277 (4th Cir. 1985)
and Erwin v. Edwards, 22 F. App'x. 579, 580 (6th
determining whether the Plaintiff has stated a plausible
claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court must
construe the Complaint in the light most favorable to the
Plaintiff, accept all factual allegations as true, and
determine whether the Complaint contains “enough facts
to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007). The Plaintiff's obligation to provide
the grounds for relief “requires more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do.” Id. Although a
Complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, its
“factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to
relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all
the allegations in the Complaint are true.”
Id. The Court is “not bound to accept as true
a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.”
Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986). Rather,
Plaintiff must plead sufficient factual content that allows
the Court to “draw the reasonable inference that
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
“[T]he plausibility standard is not akin to a
‘probability requirement,' but it asks for more
than a sheer possibility that a defendant acted
initial matter, the Complaint consists entirely of conclusory
claims that Defendants violated Plaintiff's
constitutional rights. See ECF No. 1. Plaintiff
makes no factual allegations from which this Court may
reasonably infer that Defendants are liable for the
misconduct alleged. The Court is not required to accept
Plaintiff legal conclusions, couched as a factual allegation,
as true. Papasan, 478 U.S. at ...