The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Craig R. Myers, Case No.: 3:19CV2564
Plaintiff,
v. OPINION AND ORDER
Wood County, Ohio,
Defendant.
Pro se plaintiff Craig R. Myers, a state prisoner, sues Wood County, Ohio for damages
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on the basis the County “has a policy and practice of setting excessive bail
for pretrial detainees.” (Doc. No. 1 at ¶ 1). Plaintiff is in the custody of the Ohio Department of
Rehabilitation and Correction pursuant to journal entry of sentence in State v. Myers, Wood
County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 2011-CR-03641. He alleges that in October 2012, he
received an excessive bail determination ($200,000) in his case, after bail previously set for him
at $50,000 was revoked. (Id. at 2-3, ¶¶ 13-15.) He contends that the October 2012 bail
determination resulted in his pretrial detention in county jail, violating his constitutional rights.
The plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, his
complaint is now before the court for initial screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That
statute requires district courts to review all in forma pauperis complaints filed in federal court, 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 from a defendant
who is immune from such relief. Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). To survive
1 On May 10, 2013, a Wood County jury found the plaintiff guilty of one count of abduction and
one count of felonious assault. He was sentenced on July 8, 2013, to an aggregate term of eight
years of imprisonment.
a dismissal for failure to state claim, a complaint must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted
as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. (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) for determining a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) governs dismissals
for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)).
The plaintiff’s complaint, even liberally construed, fails to state a plausible § 1983 claim.
To hold a county government liable under § 1983, a plaintiff must show that an official
policy, custom, or practice of the county itself violated his federal rights. Fields v. Henry County,
Tenn., 701 F.3d 180, 183 (6th Cir. 2012). The plaintiff “must ‘identify the policy, connect the
policy to the [County] itself and show that the particular injury was incurred because of the
execution of that policy.’” Estate of Graham v. County of Washtenaw, 358 F.3d 377, 383 (6th Cir.
2004) (quoting in part Garner v. Memphis Police Dep't., 8 F.3d 358, 364 (6th Cir. 1993)).
The plaintiff does not allege facts plausibly suggesting that a policy, custom, or practice of
Wood County caused the constitutional violations he alleges in connection with his bail. He does
not allege facts identifying a specific county policy, custom, or practice that was applied or used
in deciding his bail. The docket in his criminal case indicates that the judge revoked his bond, and
imposed the bond he now contends was excessive, after hearing evidence on a motion by the
prosecutor to revoke his bond on the basis of criminal offenses he committed. The individualized
bond/bail determinations made by the judge in the plaintiff’s criminal case do not demonstrate that
an official policy, custom, or practice of Wood County led to the constitutional violations of which
he complains. See, e.g., Brown v. City of Franklin, No. 3: 16 CV 1342, 2016 WL 6948363, at * 5-
6 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 28, 2016) (holding that a plaintiff failed to allege a § 1983 claim against a
county in connection with her bail where she did not identify a county policy or custom, or allege
facts suggesting that the county actually set her bail).
Further, any § 1983 claims the plaintiff purports to allege against the County are plainly
time-barred. See Fraley v. Ohio Gallia County, No. 97-3564, 1998 WL 789385, at *1 (6th Cir.
1998) (sua sponte dismissal of an in forma pauperis complaint is appropriate where the complaint
on its face demonstrates an affirmative defense such as the statute of limitations). The statute of
limitations for § 1983 actions arising in Ohio is the limitations statute applicable for bodily injury,
which requires that an action to be filed within two years after its accrual. Browning v. Pendleton,
869 F.2d 989 (6th Cir. 1989). Any claim the plaintiff had in connection with his 2012 bail
determination and/or his allegedly unlawful resulting pretrial detention accrued in 2012 (or, at the
latest in 2013, when he was convicted and sentenced on the charged crimes), well more than two
years before he filed this action in November 2019. Therefore, his complaint is subject to sua
sponte dismissal on the basis of the statute of limitations.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, it is ordered that the plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court further certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.
So ordered.
/s/ James G. Carr
Sr. U.S. District Judge