The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Andrey L. Bridges, ) CASE NO. 1:23 CV 1481
)
Plaintiff, ) JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
)
v. )
) Memorandum of Opinion and Order
Patricia A. Blackmon, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
INTRODUCTION
Pro se Plaintiff Andrey L. Bridges filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Ohio
Eighth District Court of Appeals Judges Mary J. Boyle, Frank D. Celebrezze, Jr., Eileen T.
Gallagher, Sean C. Gallagher, Eileen A. Gallagher, Kathleen A. Keough, Mary Eileen Kilbane,
Anita Laster Mays, and Emanuella D. Groves; former Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals
Judges Patricia A. Blackmon, Tim McCormack, and Melody J. Stewart; Ohio Attorney General
Dave Yost; Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Michael O'Malley; Cuyahoga County Common Pleas
Court Judge Holly L. Gallagher; and John/Jane Does 1 - 6. Bridges claims the defendants
prevented him from raising meritorious challenges to his 2013 murder conviction, denying him
procedural and substantive due process and his right to seek grievances related to his conviction.
He seeks monetary damages and whatever other relief the Court finds to be a justifiable remedy.
BACKGROUND
This case arises from decisions made by Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge
Holly Gallagher and Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals judges in the course of Bridges’s
2013 criminal trial, post conviction proceedings, various motions, and numerous appeals. His
filings were so prolific that the Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals declared Bridges to be a
vexatious litigator and barred him from filing future appeals without first obtaining leave of court
and paying the full filing fee. He now brings this civil rights action against the defendants
claiming that they engaged in acts of misconduct and placed procedural barriers in his path to
keep him from prevailing on meritorious challenges to his conviction. He asserts that they denied
him his right to file grievances to contest his conviction and deprived him of his liberty without
procedural or substantive due process. He contends that he is not challenging his conviction.
Bridges was arrested on May 4, 2013, and charged with aggravated murder, murder,
felonious assault, tampering with evidence, and offenses against a human corpse in connection
with the death of Carl Acoff, Jr. Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge Holly Gallagher
presided over his case. Michael O’Malley was the prosecutor. Bridges alleges he was unhappy
with the representation he was receiving from his appointed attorneys and asked Judge Holly
Gallagher to appoint new counsel. He contends she refused to do so and when he asked if he
could appeal that decision, she said no. The case proceeded to a trial by jury. In November
2013, the jury found Bridges not guilty of aggravated murder but guilty of the lesser included
offense of murder and the other offenses for which he was indicted. He was sentenced to an
aggregate term of 18 years and six months to life in prison.
-2-
Bridges, through counsel, filed an untimely notice of appeal with the Ohio Court of
Appeals. He then filed a Motion for Leave to File a Delayed Appeal which the Ohio Eighth
District Court of Appeals granted. Bridges raised three assignments of error challenging the
weight and sufficiency of the evidence. The Ohio appeals court overruled all three assignments
of error and affirmed the decision of the trial court. State v. Bridges, No. 100805, 2014 WL
5306776 (Ohio App. 8 Dist. Oct. 16, 2014). Bridges filed a timely notice of appeal with the
Ohio Supreme Court but on April 8, 2014, the Court declined to accept jurisdiction of the appeal
under S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.08(B)(4).
On July 23, 2014, Bridges filed a pro se Post-Conviction Petition in the trial court. The
trial court denied Bridges’s petition without a hearing. He then filed a request for findings of fact
and conclusions of law. In her opinion, Judge Gallagher found that Bridges failed to establish
substantive grounds for relief and denied the petition. Bridges claims he did not receive that
ruling.
Nevertheless, Bridges filed a timely notice of appeal with the Ohio Eighth District Court
of Appeals. The appellate court, sua sponte, dismissed the appeal for failure to file the record.
Bridges claims he filed a motion with the trial court asking Judge Gallagher to send the record to
the appellate court but she did not do so. Bridges filed a timely second notice of appeal with the
Ohio appellate court. Again, the appellate court dismissed the appeal on October 31, 2014, for
failure to file the record. Plaintiff claims that after his appeal was dismissed, Judge Gallagher
denied as moot his motion to send the record to the appeals court.
Bridges filed a second Post-Conviction Petition in the trial court, claiming he was denied
the effective assistance of counsel, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his case,
-3-
he was denied a speedy trial, and he was denied a fair trial due to both witness misconduct and
prosecution misconduct. The trial court denied Bridges’s petition on March 24, 2015. Bridges
filed a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law which the trial court denied. He
appealed that decision and asked the appellate court to consolidate the appeal of his
Post-Conviction Petition with another appeal he had pending relating to the denial of a Motion
for a New Trial. The court granted the motion and consolidated the appeals. The appellate
court then overruled Bridges’s assignments of error and affirmed the decisions of the trial court.
State v. Bridges, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 102903 and 103090, 2015 WL 9438519 (Ohio App. 8
Dist. Dec. 24, 2015).
On October 13, 2015, Bridges filed a Motion to Vacate Void Judgment for Lack of
Jurisdiction which the trial court denied. He filed an appeal of that decision on October 15,
2015. In May 2016, Bridges filed a Motion for Leave to Correct Error in his conviction due to
insufficient evidence. The trial court denied the motion. Bridges appealed the trial court’s
rulings and the appellate court affirmed the trial court in October 2016. State v. Bridges,
Nos. 103634 and 104506, (Ohio App. 8 Dist. Oct. 2016).
Bridges then filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court on December 10,
2015. Bridges v. Sloan, No. 1:15 CV 2556, 2018 WL 7917920, at *1 14 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 25,
2019) (Zouhary, J.). On February 25, 2019, United States District Court Judge Jack Zouhary
adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation dismissing with prejudice in part
and denying in part Bridge’s habeas petition. Bridges filed an appeal of this decision to the
United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on March 18 2019. The Sixth Circuit denied his
-4-
application for a certificate of appealability on November 22, 2019. The Supreme Court of the
United States denied his petition for a writ of certiorari on February 24, 2021.
In December 2017, while his federal habeas petition was pending, Bridges filed a Motion
for Leave to File Void or Voidable Judgment. The trial court denied Bridges’s motion and he
appealed. The appellate court affirmed the trial court, finding the motion to be both untimely and
barred by res judicata. State v. Bridges, No. 106653, 2018 WL 4113 (Ohio App. 8 Dist. Oct. 11,
2018).
On June 26, 2019, and on November 29, 2021, Bridges filed motions attempting to
reopen his 2014 post conviction petitions. The trial court denied the motions. The Ohio
appellate court affirmed those decisions. At that time, Bridges was declared a vexatious litigator
and barred from filing future appeals without leave of court and without payment of the full filing
fee. State v. Bridges, No. 111833 (Ohio App. 8 Dist. Mar. 30, 2023).
Bridges has now filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the trial
judge, the appellate court judges, the prosecutor, and the Ohio Attorney General. He states that
his claims in his petitions, motions, and appeals had merit and that he “won” those cases but the
judges’ decisions prevented him from obtaining relief. His Complaint contains five discernable
causes of action. First, he claims that Judge Holly Gallagher denied him due process by failing to
forward the record of his criminal case to the Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals causing his
appeal of this Post-Conviction Petition to be dismissed in October 2014. He claims Judges
Eileen T. Gallagher, Frank Celebreeze, Jr., and Emanuella Groves recognized the deprivation of
rights caused by Judge Holly Gallagher but rendered decisions that prevented him from
redressing the deprivation of his rights. Second, he claims the defendants conspired together to
-5-
deprive him of his right to file appeals and grievances by declaring him to be a vexatious litigator.
Third, he asserts claims for obstruction of justice. He alleges that the prosecutors and judges
withheld exculpatory evidence that demonstrated his innocence of the crime, including a
statement from a person who claimed to see the murder victim alive after the victim was thought
to have been killed. He claims his arguments were meritorious but the judicial defendants would
not rule in his favor. Bridges states this is punishable under 18 U.S.C. § 401(1). Fourth, he
asserts a claim for abuse of power. He contends the defendants deprived him of his right to file
grievances, his right to substantive due process, and his right to procedural due process by
dismissing his claims. Finally, he claims the defendants acted unprofessionally by tampering with
records, withholding exculpatory information, and forcing him to overcome procedural hurdles.
He indicates that he is not seeking monetary damages but asks the Court to do what it deems
justifiable to relieve him from the alleged civil rights violations. He then indicates he is seeking
$8,000.00 from each defendant in compensatory damages and $99.99 in nominal damages.
Bridges states many times throughout his Complaint that he is not attempting to challenge his
conviction or his sentence.
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
-6-
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 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
As an initial matter, Bridges cannot raise claims in a civil rights action if a favorable
decision on the merits of his claims would call into question the validity of his conviction or
sentence. In order to recover damages for an alleged unconstitutional conviction or
imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a
conviction or sentence invalid, a §1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence was
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
-7-
writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486 (1994). A
claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been
invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. Therefore, when a state prisoner seeks damages in a §
1983 suit, the court must consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily
imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence. If it would, the complaint must be dismissed
unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.
If, however, the court determines that the plaintiff’s claims, even if successful, will not
demonstrate the invalidity of any outstanding criminal judgment against the plaintiff, the action
should be allowed to proceed in the absence of some other bar to the suit.
In this case, Bridges asserts that the judges and prosecutor deprived him of meritorious
claims and defenses by making him jump through procedural hurdles and by not ruling in his
favor. He contends Judge Holly Gallagher deprived him of a meritorious appeal of his Post-
Conviction Petition by not sending the record to the court of appeals. He contends Michael
O’Malley engaged in prosecutorial misconduct and withheld exculpatory evidence. He alleges
the appellate court judges engaged in misconduct and denied meritorious claims. A ruling in
Bridges’s favor on these claims would call his conviction into question. He, therefore, cannot
proceed with this action unless his conviction has been overturned on appeal or called into
question by a federal writ of habeas corpus. His conviction, however, was affirmed on appeal
and his federal habeas petition was denied in part and dismissed in part. He cannot proceed with
these claims in a civil rights action.
Furthermore, all of the defendants are immune from suits for damages. The judges are
absolutely immune from suits for damages that arise from decisions they made in the course of
-8-
presiding over a case as long as they were acting as judges, not civilians, when they committed
the actions and as long as the court over which they presided had jurisdiction over the type of
case in which the decisions were made. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9 (1991); Barnes v.
Winchell, 105 F.3d 1111, 1115 (6th Cir. 1997). The claims in this case are based on decisions
the judges rendered while presiding over Bridges’s criminal case and his appeals, and the courts
had subject matter jurisdiction over criminal cases and appeals of criminal convictions. Judges
Patricia A. Blackmon, Mary J. Boyle, Frank D. Celebrezze, Jr., Eileen T. Gallagher, Sean C.
Gallagher, Eileen A. Gallagher, Kathleen A. Keough, Mary Eileen Kilbane, Anita Laster Mays,
Tim McCormack, Melody J. Stewart, Emanuella D. Groves, and Holly Gallagher are absolutely
immune from suits for damages.
Similarly, Michael O’Malley and Dave Yost are entitled to prosecutorial immunity for
claims against them which are based on actions taken to initiate a prosecution and to present the
state’s case. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976); Pusey v. Youngstown, 11 F.3d 652,
658 (6th Cir. 1993). Immunity also extends to protect prosecutors from claims related to
activities undertaken “in connection with [the] duties in functioning as a prosecutor.” Imbler, 424
U.S. at 431; Higgason v. Stephens, 288 F.3d 868, 877 (6th Cir. 2002). The claims against
O’Malley all pertain to his role in prosecuting Bridges. Dave Yost is not mentioned in the body
of the Complaint. To the extent he is named as a defendant for his role in representing the State
of Ohio in certain post conviction proceedings, including federal habeas corpus proceedings, he is
considered to be a prosecutor. Both O’Malley and Yost are immune from suit in this case.
To the extent Yost is not included as a defendant for his role in representing the state in
various post conviction proceedings, the claim or claims against him must be dismissed. To meet
-9-
federal notice pleading requirements, the complaint must give the defendants fair notice of what
the plaintiff's legal claims are and the factual grounds upon which they rest. Jd. at 726; Bassett v.
National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 528 F.3d 426, 437 (6th Cir. 2008). This means that Bridges
must allege facts clearly showing that Yost was personally involved in the activities which form
the basis of the alleged unconstitutional behavior. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976);
Mullins v. Hainesworth, No. 95-3186, 1995 WL 559381 (6th Cir. Sept. 20, 1995). Because
there are no allegations against Yost in the Complaint, the claims against him are dismissed.
Finally, even if Bridges’s claims were cognizable in a § 1983 action and the defendants
were not immune from suit, Bridge’s claims, with the exception of the March 2023 declaration of
Bridges as a vexatious litigator, would be time-barred. Ohio’s two-year statute of limitations for
bodily injury applies to §1983 claims. LRL Properties v. Portage Metro Housing Authority, 55
F. 3d 1097 (6th Cir. 1995). This action was filed on July 28, 2023. Any claims that pertain to
actions that occurred prior to July 28, 2021, are time-barred.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, 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/ Patricia A. Gaughan
PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
Dated: 10/25/23 United States District Judge
-10-