The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
MUHAMMAD EURY, ) Case No. 1:22-cv-331
)
Plaintiff, ) Judge J. Philip Calabrese
)
v. ) Magistrate Judge
) Jonathan D. Greenberg
ROBERT BROOKS, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)
)
OPINION AND ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Muhammad Eury filed this action against two of his former
landlords and his current landlord. He claims that their rental units were infested
with insects and in need of major repairs to be habitable. He also alleges that the
landlords behaved menacingly toward him and encouraged others to follow him
around and threaten him. He does not specify the legal claim or claims he intends
to assert against Defendants, nor does he indicate the relief he is seeking from the
Court.
Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2).
That Application is granted.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiff alleges that, on May 3, 2021, he moved into a rooming house owned
Robert Brooks owns. Plaintiff states that he stayed in his room most of the time he
was at home because Mr. Brooks permitted illegal activities to be conducted from the
property. Plaintiff contends that Mr. Brooks and other tenants became concerned
that Plaintiff’s absence from common areas meant that he would report the illegal
activities to the police. He alleges that to assure his silence, Mr. Brooks reported to
that police that Plaintiff was threatening to burn down the house, prompting police
officers to question Plaintiff. The officers did not take any action against the Plaintiff.
Plaintiff states that associates of Mr. Brooks advised him that Brooks wanted to have
him killed. Plaintiff contends he decided to move to another rooming house after
someone fired a gun at him. He solicited the presence of police and friends to prevent
violence from erupting while he moved his belongings.
Plaintiff next moved to the rooming house Albert Thrower owned. He alleges
that the room was filthy and infested with insects and vermin. Also, he alleges that
the other tenants were racists. He contends that Mr. Thrower threatened him and
colluded with strangers to destroy him. He states that he moved from that residence
on the advice of Mr. Thrower.
Plaintiff states that he then moved into his current rental unit, which Arthur
Brown owns. Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Brown told him that, if tenants complained
about the conditions, he would create animosity between them and reward the tenant
that told the best lie for him. Plaintiff contends that he informed Mr. Brown that one
tenant attacked another in the bathroom and that Mr. Brown said he cared only about
the money. Plaintiff alleges that he fell into the floor because the boards were rotted,
the ceiling dropped on another tenant, and a raccoon came out of the wall. He states
that the conditions are so bad that none of the tenants will let investigators in because
they know they will face eviction.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Plaintiff does not list a legal claim in his Complaint, and he does not specify
what relief he seeks from the Defendants. On his civil cover sheet, Plaintiff states
that his cause of action is “violation of 8th Amendment, Duress, threats against life,
liberty, and property.” (ECF No. 1-1.) He does not provide additional information
about the relief he requests.
ANALYSIS
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 on which relief can be granted or if it lacks an arguable
basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989); Sistrunk v. City
of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996). A claim lacks an arguable basis
in law or fact where it is premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory or
where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.
A cause of action fails to state a claim on 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. Twombly, 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, 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).
Here, Plaintiff fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. He does
not assert a legal claim in his complaint. His civil cover sheet indicates that he is
attempting to assert claims for violation of his constitutional rights. Because the
Constitution does not directly provide for a remedy, and Plaintiff is not alleging
these violations occurred during a criminal proceeding, he must proceed under one
of the civil rights statutes which authorizes relief for alleged constitutional
violations. Sanders v. Prentice-Hall Corp. Sys, No. 97-6138, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS
2113, at *5 (6th Cir. Feb. 8, 1999). The only possible statute under which Plaintiff
could proceed is 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This statute, however, only provides relief for
constitutional violations State or local government officials commit. Parratt v.
Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981). Each Defendant is a private party—not a State
or local official. Therefore, Plaintiff cannot proceed against them with claims under
Section 1983. Plaintiff does not identify another potential legal claim in his
complaint or initial filings, and none is apparent from the face of the complaint.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Application to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) and DISMISSES this action pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the Court CERTIFIES that
an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 3, 2022
J.Philip Calabrese”
United States District Judge
Northern District of Ohio