dismissing complaint against a local government for failing to allege that a constitutional right violation occurred pursuant to a municipal custom, usage, or official policy
How later courts described this case
- dismissing complaint against a local government for failing to allege that a constitutional right violation occurred pursuant to a municipal custom, usage, or official policy
- holding that to state a claim, a plaintiff must make sufficient allegations to give a defendant fair notice of the claim
- citing, among authority, Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 64–65 (1986)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
REV. DENNIS BRIGGS, ) Case No. 1:21-cv-01568
)
Plaintiff, ) Judge J. Philip Calabrese
)
v. ) Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Parker
)
CITY OF WADSWORTH, OHIO, )
)
Defendant. )
)
OPINION AND ORDER
On August 12, 2021, pro se plaintiff Rev. Dennis Briggs filed this civil rights
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against “City of Wadsworth, Ohio.” (Doc. No. 1). For
the following reasons, the Court DISMISSES this action.
BACKGROUND
It appears that Plaintiff’s complaint is an attempt to seek criminal charges
against Sergeant Elchlinger for his purported involvement in Plaintiff’s arrest in
January 2021. Plaintiff states in his complaint that on January 11, 2021, he was
leaving a store, and Sergeant Elchlinger arrested him for public indecency and stole
his phone. Plaintiff states that the charge was later dismissed But as he left the jail,
he received a letter from “Medina County” indicating that he was disqualified from
HUD Housing because of the public indecency charge. He states that he “request[s]
this court to file charges against Sgt. Elchlinger for theft, conspiracy with HUD, hate
crimes against a Christian, kidnapping, and unlawful detainment.” (ECF No. 1.)
Plaintiff also seeks monetary relief.
GOVERNING LEGAL STANDARD
By separate order, the Court granted this pro se plaintiff leave to proceed in
forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Accordingly, because Plaintiff is
proceeding in forma pauperis, and seeks relief from a government defendant, his
complaint is before the Court for initial screening under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and
1915(e)(2)(B). These statutes require district courts to screen all in forma pauperis
complaints filed in federal court, and all complaints in which prisoners seek redress
from governmental entities, officers, or employees, and to dismiss before service any
such complaint that the court determines is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from such relief. See Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470–71 (6th Cir.
2010).
Although a complaint filed by a pro se plaintiff is “liberally construed” and
“held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Erickson
v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.
97, 106 (1976)), a pro se complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted
as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face’” to avoid a dismissal for
failure to state a claim. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); Hill, 630 F.3d at 470–71 (holding that
the “dismissal standard articulated in Iqbal and Twombly governs dismissals for
failure to state a claim” under §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B)).
ANALYSIS
Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed
under §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B).
First, the complaint is subject to dismissal because it fails to meet basic
pleading requirements by identifying how the defendant City of Wadsworth was
personally involved in an alleged rights violation. It is a basic pleading requirement
that a plaintiff must attribute specific factual allegations to particular defendants.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (holding that to state a claim, a plaintiff must make
sufficient allegations to give a defendant fair notice of the claim). And the Court is
not required to conjure unpleaded facts or construct claims against defendants on
behalf of a pro se plaintiff. See Bassett v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 528 F.3d
426, 437 (6th Cir. 2008).
Where, as here, the City of Wadsworth is named as a defendant without
allegations of discernible specific conduct relating to Plaintiff’s purported claim, the
complaint is subject to dismissal even under the liberal construction afforded to pro
se complaints. “Merely listing names in the caption of the complaint and alleging
constitutional violations in the body of the complaint is not enough to sustain recovery
under § 1983.” See Gilmore v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 92 F. App’x 188, 190 (6th Cir.
2004).
Second, to the extent Plaintiff alleges that the City of Wadsworth is liable for
the alleged misconduct of Sergeant Elchlinger, a purported employee, Plaintiff’s claim
fails. There is no respondeat superior liability for constitutional rights violations
under Section 1983, and Plaintiff has not alleged facts in his complaint sufficient to
demonstrate that an official policy or custom of the City of Wadsworth caused a
violation of his constitutional rights. See Moniz v. Hines, 92 F. App’x 208, 211 (6th
Cir. 2004) (dismissing complaint against a local government for failing to allege that
a constitutional right violation occurred pursuant to a municipal custom, usage, or
official policy). Therefore, the complaint fails to allege a plausible claim against the
City of Wadsworth.
Finally, to the extent Plaintiff seeks criminal charges against Sergeant
Elchlinger, he lacks standing. A private citizen “has no authority to initiate a federal
criminal prosecution [against] defendants for their alleged unlawful acts.” Williams
v. Luttrell, 99 F. App’x 705, 707 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing, among authority, Diamond v.
Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 64–65 (1986)). “A private citizen has no authority to initiate a
federal criminal prosecution; that power is vested exclusively in the executive
branch.” Saro v. Brown, 11 F. App’x 387, 388 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing U.S. v. Nixon,
418 U.S. 683, 693 (1974)). And in the absence of a private right of action, Plaintiff
lacks standing to commence a federal criminal action against Defendants. See Profit
v. City of Shaker Hts., No. 1:18CV1223, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10873, at *5 (N.D.
Ohio Jan. 23, 2019); see also Poole v. CitiMortgage, Inc., No. 14-CV-10512, 2014 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 135488, 2014 WL 4772177, at *5 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 24, 2014) (a private
citizen lacks standing to initiate criminal proceedings) (citing, among authority,
Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973)). Therefore, Plaintiff cannot obtain
the relief he seeks—criminal charges against the arresting sergeant.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DIMISSES Plaintiff's complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B). Further, the Court certifies,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision may not be taken
in good faith.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 25, 2021
J.Philip Calabrese”
United States District Judge
Northern District of Ohio