The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
MALIK ABDUL AZIZ, Case No. 1: 20 CV 301
Plaintiff,
-vs- JUDGE PAMELA A. BARKER
STATE OF OHIO, et al., MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND
ORDER
Defendants.
Background
Pro se plaintiff Malik Abdul Aziz has filed an in forma pauperis prisoner complaint in this
case against the State of Ohio and the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. (Doc. No. 1.) His
complaint pertains to his detention in connection with a state criminal case brought against him in
Cuyahoga County, State of Ohio v. Malik Aziz, CR-18-635850-A. The plaintiff alleges he was
“falsely arrested” and detained in the case on charges of having weapons while under a disability on
the basis he “put the officers on notice as to [his] status of a secured party creditor” over whom “they
had no jurisdiction.” (Id. at 3.)
He further alleges he was illegally detained after the state criminal case was dismissed “until
the feds indicted” him for the same conduct on the basis “they dishonored my UCC contract, by
continuing to incarcerate me after knowing that I was not the surety/nor accommodation party.” (Id.
at 4.) 1
1 The docket in the plaintiff’s subsequent federal criminal case indicates that he pleaded guilty and
was convicted in federal court of having a weapon while under a disability. See United States v.
Aziz, 1: 19-cr-106 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 4, 2020).
For relief, the plaintiff seeks $584,000.00 and $1.6 million in damages, to have his “case
dismissed,” and for “relief of disability so [that his] gun rights are restored.” (Id. at 5.)
Standard of Review
Pro se complaints are construed liberally and held to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers. Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir.2011). However, “the
lenient treatment generally accorded to pro se litigants has limits,” and a pro se plaintiff is not
automatically entitled to take every case to trial. Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th
Cir.1996). A federal district court is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis action “at any time”
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) if the court determines the complaint is frivolous or malicious, fails
to state a claim on which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. A complaint is frivolous and warrants dismissal if it contains factual
allegations that are fantastic or delusional, or if it is based on legal theories that are indisputably
meritless. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989); Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863, 866
(6th Cir. 2000); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196, 1198–99 (6th Cir. 1990). A complaint fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted if it does not contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted
as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 471 (6th
Cir. 2010).
Discussion
The Court finds that the plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). First, the plaintiff’s claims that he is entitled to damages or other relief from a criminal
conviction or sentence on the basis that he is a “a secured party creditor” lack any viable legal basis
and are patently frivolous. See, e.g., Johnson v. Ohio, 1: 14 CV 1419, 2015 WL 106163, at *3 (N.D.
2
Ohio Jan. 7, 2015) (“The plaintiff, simply, has no viable legal claim that he is a secured party creditor
under the UCC or is entitled to the relief he seeks under any theory of commercial law.”).
Second, to the extent the plaintiff purports to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding
his physical imprisonment, conviction, or sentence, such claims are barred by the Supreme Court’s
decisions in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) and Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973).
Preiser held that a civil rights action is not an appropriate vehicle to challenge a conviction or
sentence. Rather, if a prisoner is “challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment,
and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release
from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.” Preiser, 411 U.S. at
500.
Heck held that in order “to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or
imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or
sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff” must first demonstrate that his “conviction or sentence has been
reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized
to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas
corpus.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87. The plaintiff has not made this showing.
Finally, the defendants the plaintiff names in his complaint are immune or are not state actors
subject to suit for civil rights violations under § 1983. The State of Ohio is immune from suit under
the Eleventh Amendment, and Ohio courts are not sui juris. Arbino v. Ohio, No. 1:12 CV 0203, 2012
WL 1756856, at *2 (S.D. Ohio April 2, 2012).
Conclusion
3
For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed pursuant to 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/ Pamela A. Barker
PAMELA A. BARKER
Date: June 5, 2020 U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE
4