Rogerson-Wise v. Cuyahoga County Jail

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

DANIEL R. ROGERSON-WISE, Pro Se, ) Case No.: 1:23 CV 1838

)

Plaintiff, )

) JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.

v. )

)

CUYAHOGA COUNTY JAIL, et al., ) MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

) AND ORDER

Defendants. )

Pro se Plaintiff Daniel R. Rogerson-Wise filed this action against the Cuyahoga County Jail

and Metro Hospital. In the Complaint, Plaintiff lists multiple challenges to conditions in the jail.

He asks this Court to award him one million dollars in damages.

Background

Plaintiff’s Complaint lists six claims, some of which have multiple subparts. First, he claims

that upon his arrival at the jail, Corrections Officer Brown took 12 of his gold teeth. Plaintiff alleges

they have not been seen since that were taken; however, Plaintiff is still incarcerated in the jail.

Second, Plaintiff claims a jail physician placed him on a medication called Doxypin. He thinks this

medication is dangerous and unnecessary. Third, Plaintiff contends there are no medical emergency

buttons in the cells. He alleges he fell and had a bad seizure. Fourth, he alleges he was denied

showers for a week at a time causing him to contract a Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus

(MRSA) infection. He claims one of the nurses lied about providing him with proper wound care.

Fifth, he claims that he was forced to give up his bottom bunk assignment against doctor’s orders

and was given a top bunk instead. He contends he slept on the floor. Finally, Plaintiff claims he was

denied telephone calls and access to a law library because he lost his electronic tablet. He contends

the jail keeps weekly “red zones.” He cites 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for civil rights violations and asserts

claims for fraud and medical malpractice. He seeks one million dollars in damages.

Standard of Review

A District Court is expressly authorized to dismiss any civil action filed by a prisoner seeking

relief from a governmental entity, as soon as possible after docketing, if the Court concludes that the

Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if the Plaintiff seeks monetary

relief from a Defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §1915A; Siller v. Dean, No. 99-

5323, 2000 WL 145167 , at *2 (6th Cir. Feb. 1, 2000); see Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37

(1974) (citing numerous Supreme Court cases for the proposition that attenuated or unsubstantial

claims divest the district court of jurisdiction); In re Bendectin Litig., 857 F.2d 290, 300 (6th Cir.

1988) (recognizing that federal question jurisdiction is divested by unsubstantial claims).

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. 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

2

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).

Analysis

As an initial matter, Plaintiff has not identified a Defendant against whom any of his potential

federal claims can be bought. A County Jail is not sui juris, meaning it is not a legal entity under

Ohio law that can sue or be sued. See Carmichael v. City of Cleveland, 571 F. App’x 426, 435 (6th

Cir. 2014) (finding that “under Ohio law, a county sheriff’s office is not a legal entity that is capable

of being sued”); Gerald v. Akron Bar Assn., No. 5: 18 CV 414, 2018 WL 2985142, at *2, (N.D. Ohio

June 14, 2018) (finding the Summit County jail is not sui juris and therefore lacks the capacity to

be sued); Jackson v. Mowry, No. 1:12 CV 3083, 2013 WL 526916, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 11, 2013);

Boggs v. Miami Cty. Jail, No. 3:11 CV 00122, 2011 WL 3813079, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 9, 2011)

(a county jail “is merely an administrative vehicle” by which a county operates and therefore “lacks

the capacity to be sued”). As a consequence, Plaintiff’s claims against the Cuyahoga County Jail fail

as a matter of law.

In addition, Plaintiff fails to allege any facts that pertain to Metro Hospital. He merely states

that they work inside the prison. That allegation is insufficient to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted.

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to hold Metro Hospital liable for decisions made by medical

personnel in the prison, he still fails to state a claim against this Defendant. Government entities and

officials may not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates under the

3

theory of respondeat superior.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676. Consequently, unless the Plaintiff’s

Complaint affirmatively pleads the direct involvement of the Defendant in the allegedly

unconstitutional action, the Complaint fails to state a claim against that Defendant and dismissal is

warranted. See Bellamy v. Bradley, 729 F.2d 416, 421 (6th Cir. 1984). As Plaintiff has not alleged

any wrong-doing by Metro Hospital, he fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted

against that Defendant.

Conclusion

Accordingly, this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A. 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.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/S/ SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

December 7, 2023

1 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides:

An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies that it is not

taken in good faith.

4