The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Charles Brown, ) CASE NO. 1:21 CV 1629
)
Plaintiff, ) JUDGE PAMELA A. BARKER
)
v. )
) MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
Lorain County ) AND ORDER
Prosecutor’s Office, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
Pro se Plaintiff Charles Brown filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the
Lorain County Prosecutor’s Office, and individual prosecutors Dennis P. Will, Margarita
Rivera, Sally Abel, Denise Rakich, Jennifer Temochko, and Patrick Hakos. The Complaint
pertains to a state criminal case brought against the Plaintiff in the Lorain County Court of
Common Pleas. See State of Ohio v. Brown, No. 16CR094735 (Lorain Cty Ct. Comm. Pl.
indictment filed Sept. 9, 2016). Plaintiff asserts claims against the Defendants for abuse of
process, malicious prosecution, and prosecutorial misconduct. He seeks monetary damages.
Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). That Motion is
granted.
1
BACKGROUND
The Plaintiff was charged with and prosecuted in the Lorain County Court of Common
Pleas for attempted sexual battery, attempted child endangering and domestic violence in
connection with interactions he had with his daughter, D.B. (Doc. 1-4 at PageID #: 28). D.B.
recorded conversations with Plaintiff in which he tried to convince her to engage in “sex lessons”
with him. (Doc. 1-4 at PageID #: 27-28). D.B. turned these recordings over to police, resulting
in Plaintiff’s prosecution. After a jury trial, Plaintiff was convicted on the charges of attempted
child endangering and attempted sexual battery. He was found not guilty on the domestic violence
charge. The Ohio Court of Appeals, however, reversed his convictions, finding that the State had
failed to present sufficient evidence that Plaintiff took any “substantial step” toward the
commission of either attempted offense as required by Ohio law. See State v. Brown, No. 18 CA
11310, 2019-Ohio-2599, at ¶ 21 (Ohio App. June 28, 2019).
On March 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the Lorain County Court of Common
Pleas against the Lorain County Prosecutor’s Office, Will, Rivera, Abel, Rakich, Temochko,
and Hakos, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for abuse of process, malicious
prosecution, and prosecutorial misconduct. The Defendants removed the case to this federal
court on April 1, 2020 and filed a Motion to Dismiss. See Brown v. Lorain Cty Prosecutor’s
Office, No. 1:20 CV 691 (Aug. 4, 2020) (Barker, J.). On August 4, 2020, this Court granted
the Motion to Dismiss with respect to the federal claims alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint.
This Court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and remanded them
to state court. Id. (Doc. No. 18). The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss in state court on
August 18, 2020. The state court granted that Motion on August 16, 2020, dismissing the
state law claims with prejudice.
2
One year later, Plaintiff filed this action against the same Defendants, asserting the
same claims based on the same facts. He initiated this case in federal court under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 claiming that the Defendants engaged in prosecutorial misconduct, malicious
prosecution, and abuse of process in his criminal case, No. 16CR094735. (Doc. 1 at PageID
#: 3). He alleges the Defendants acted outside their authority to pursue his criminal
prosecution and lacked evidence that he committed a crime. He contends they targeted him
to harass him and cause damage to his reputation. (Doc. 1 at PageID #: 3). He seeks $
500,000.00 in damages.
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), the Court is 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 lacks an arguable basis in law or fact
when it is premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory or 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
3
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, the Court 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).
DISCUSSION
The doctrine of res judicata dictates that a final judgment on the merits of a claim
precludes a party from bringing a subsequent lawsuit on the same claim or from raising a new
defense to defeat the prior judgment. Gargallo v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.,
918 F.2d 658, 660 (6th Cir. 1990). It bars relitigation of every issue actually brought before the
court and every issue or defense that should have been raised in the previous action. Id. The
purpose of this doctrine is to promote the finality of judgments and thereby increase certainty,
discourage multiple litigation, and conserve judicial resources. Westwood Chemical Co. v.
Kulick, 656 F.2d 1224, 1229 (6th Cir. 1981). A subsequent action will be subject to a res judicata
bar only if there is an identity of the facts creating the right of action and of the evidence necessary
to sustain each action. Both of these requirements are met in this case.
This is the second case that Plaintiff brought against these same Defendants based on the
same facts and asserting the same claims. This Court already considered his federal claims on the
merits and rendered judgment on them. The state court dismissed his state law claims on the
merits as well. This Court must give full faith and credit to the state court judgment. Plaintiff is
barred by the doctrine of res judicata from relitigating these claims and these issues.
4
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is granted and this
action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e). The Court 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: December 7, 2021 U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE
5