The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
David J. Culver, II, Case No. 3:20-cv-01226
Plaintiff
v. MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
Job and Family Services, et al.,
Defendants
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
Pro se Plaintiff David J. Culver, II filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title VII, 42
U.S.C. § 2000e against Williams County Job and Family Services (“JFS”), and JFS Employee Calista
Garza. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges Garza repeatedly harassed him in an attempt to take
custody of his children from him. He seeks monetary damages.
Plaintiff alleges that on April 16, 2020, Garza came to his house with a police escort. He
states he was not home when she arrived but came home later to discover Garza questioning his
wife. She indicates that she was concerned that he had not taken his homeschooled children in for
state testing and that he was a registered sexual offender with custody of his children. Plaintiff states
he had just returned with the children from state testing and that the sheriff was aware of his
custodial situation and did not express concern with the arrangement. He told her he was in the
processing of moving. He asked to see a warrant and when one could not be produced, asked her
leave. She complied with that request.
he was greeted by Garza’s call telling him she was going to take his children away from him and
make sure he never saw them again. She called later that day to say that his case was closed. On
April 22, 2020, Garza called Bay County Child Protective Services and asked them to investigate the
living arrangement with Plaintiff’s children. An agent came out to Plaintiff’s father’s house to
interview the family. He stopped when Plaintiff indicated he wanted to speak to an attorney. They
rescheduled the meeting for May 2, 2020, at Plaintiff’s house so that he could see the children’s
living arrangements.
Plaintiff returned to Ohio to get the remainder of his belongings on April 27, 2020. He
thought that he would have plenty of time to make the trip back to Florida and keep his
appointment on May 2. He indicates he was also due to start his job in Florida and the children had
state testing scheduled in Florida upon their return. He states that on April 28, 2020, Garza called
him pretending to be a teacher from the state testing site telling Plaintiff the children had to be
tested in Ohio, and not Florida. He called her office, noted that he had received 34 calls from her in
one day and asked why she was harassing him if their case was closed. He contends she became
angry and spoke to him very rudely.
On April 30, 2020, Plaintiff was packing some of things to take to storage when he noticed
Garza at his old apartment door. She was accompanied by two other JFS Officers. Garza told him
she was there to take his children. Plaintiff asked to see the court order and he claims she informed
him that she did not need one. She handed him some paperwork with a court date on it. He
contends she took his children to their maternal grandparents’ home. Meanwhile, Plaintiff called the
Child Protective Services Officer in Bay County Florida to explain what happened and to inform
him that he would have to miss their meeting on May 2, 2020. He states that officer expressed that
he did not see grounds for taking the children. Plaintiff contends Garza called the officer in Florida
had difficulty doing so because he had missed an appointment.
Plaintiff alleges that from May 3, 2020 to May 10, 2020, Garza followed him around town
and harassed him. He claims she made several attempts to pull him over to sign paperwork or
remind him of court dates and family meetings. He alleges she told him he would probably never
make those meetings. He states she questioned his wife every day, asking for his whereabouts, his
income, and where he stayed when he was in town. Plaintiff alleges Garza showed up at the
apartment at which he was staying and watched him from the parking lot or just drove by slowly.
He claims she followed him in stores and at work and even called some of his clients. He contends
he asked her to stop but she told him she was a government official and could do whatever she
wanted.
Plaintiff claims that Garza presented false testimony in court. He states she had no evidence
to back her claims and he brought that to the attention of the court. Although he does not indicate
what charges were brought in that case, he claims the judge found them to be without merit. He
alleges he filed complaints with her supervisor and the state of Ohio, but no one pursued
disciplinary action against her. He asserts his civil rights have been violated and he’s been the victim
of discrimination under Title VII. He seeks monetary damages for physical, mental, and emotional
distress.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982)
(per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), I am required to dismiss an in forma pauperis
action under 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e) if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or if it
lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898
F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990); Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996). A claim
when the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. A cause of action fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it lacks “plausibility in the Complaint.” Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 564 (2007).
A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
is entitled to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009). The factual allegations in the
pleading must be sufficient to raise the right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption
that all the allegations in the Complaint are true. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 555. The Plaintiff is not
required to include detailed factual allegations, but must provide more than “an unadorned,
the-Defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pleading that offers
legal conclusions or a simple recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not meet this
pleading standard. Id. In reviewing a Complaint, I must construe the pleading in the light most
favorable to the Plaintiff. Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 151 F.3d 559, 561 (6th Cir. 1998).
ANALYSIS
As an initial matter, Plaintiff fails to identify a plausible federal legal claim upon which this
case can proceed. To establish a prima facie case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff must assert that a
person acting under color of state law deprived him of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by
the Constitution or laws of the United States. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981). Plaintiff
does not indicate a specific constitutional right he believes Garza violated.
Plaintiff states that the Defendants discriminated against him, which could be construed as a
claim for denial of equal protection. The first element of an equal protection claim, however, is
disparate treatment, meaning individuals in one group are treated differently than similarly situated
individuals in another group, due to their membership in a protected class. Scarbrough v. Morgan
Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 470 F.3d 250, 260 (6th Cir. 2006). When disparate treatment is shown, the equal
In this case, Plaintiff does not allege that he was treated differently than others in his same situation.
He indicates how he was treated but does not suggest that this treatment was different than the
treatment received by others in his same situation. Furthermore, he does not indicate what he
believes to have been the basis of the discrimination. He has not stated facts to plausibly satisfy the
elements of an equal protection claim.
Title VII also prohibits discrimination but in the context of employment. Plaintiff does not
allege employment discrimination.
The remainder of Plaintiff’s claims for harassment and intention infliction of emotional
distress are state law claims. Supplemental jurisdiction exists whenever state law and federal law
claims derive from the same nucleus of operative facts and when considerations of judicial economy
dictate having a single trial. United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 724 (1966). I,
however, may exercise discretion in hearing state law matters. Id. at 726. In cases where the federal
law claims are dismissed before trial, the state law claims should also be dismissed. Id. Having
dismissed Plaintiff’s federal law claims, I decline jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s state law claims.
CONCLUSION
Having considered and examined the pro se Plaintiff’s pleadings to determine their legal
viability, I conclude they fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, this
action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). I certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3),
that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. This case is closed.
So Ordered.
s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick
United States District Judge