Edwards v. Baldwin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION AT COLUMBUS

SAMUEL L. EDWARDS, : Case No. 2:22-cv-3488

:

Plaintiff, :

: District Judge Michael H. Watson

vs. :

Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry

:

SHERIFF DALLAS BALDWIN, et al., :

REPORT AND

:

RECOMMENDATION

Defendants. :

:

Plaintiff, a prisoner at the Franklin County Corrections Center, has filed a pro se civil

rights complaint in this Court against defendants Sheriff Dallas Baldwin, Tonja Phillips, Syble

Sayon, Nalea Whiting, Tresalyn Butler, Carolyn Pierce, Jason Poindexter, Sgt. Young, Mike

Turner, and two John Doe defendants. (See Doc. 1-1, Complaint at PageID 9). By separate

Order, plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

This matter is before the Court for a sua sponte review of the complaint to determine

whether the complaint, or any portion of it, should be dismissed because it is frivolous, 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 Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 § 804, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B); § 805, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

Screening of Plaintiff’s Complaint

A. Legal Standard

Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the federal in forma pauperis statute, seeking to “lower

judicial access barriers to the indigent.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). In doing

so, however, “Congress recognized that ‘a litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed

by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous,

malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.’” Id. at 31 (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324

(1989)). To address this concern, Congress included subsection (e)(1) as part of the statute, which

provides in pertinent part:

(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid,

the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that—

* * *

(B) the action or appeal—

(i) is frivolous or malicious;

(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or

(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Denton, 504 U.S. at 31. See also § 1915A(b). Thus, § 1915(e) requires

sua sponte dismissal of an action upon the Court’s determination that the action is frivolous or

malicious, or upon determination that the action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted.

To properly state a claim upon which relief may be granted, a plaintiff must satisfy the

basic federal pleading requirements set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). See also Hill

v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470–71 (6th Cir. 2010) (applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6) standards to review under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). Under Rule

8(a)(2), a complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader

is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Thus, Rule 8(a) “imposes legal and factual demands

on the authors of complaints.” 16630 Southfield Ltd., P’Ship v. Flagstar Bank, F.S.B., 727 F.3d

502, 503 (6th Cir. 2013).

1 Formerly 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).

Although this pleading standard does not require “‘detailed factual allegations,’ . . . [a]

pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause

of action’” is insufficient. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp.

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A complaint will not “suffice if it tenders ‘naked

assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).

Instead, to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), “a complaint

must contain sufficient factual matter . . . to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”

Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Facial plausibility is established “when the plaintiff pleads

factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable

for the misconduct alleged.” Id. “The plausibility of an inference depends on a host of

considerations, including common sense and the strength of competing explanations for the

defendant’s conduct.” Flagstar Bank, 727 F.3d at 504 (citations omitted). Further, the Court holds

pro se complaints “‘to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Garrett

v. Belmont Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t., No. 08-3978, 2010 WL 1252923, at *2 (6th Cir. April 1, 2010)

(quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)). This lenient treatment, however, has limits;

“‘courts should not have to guess at the nature of the claim asserted.’” Frengler v. Gen. Motors,

482 F. App’x 975, 976–77 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir.

1989)).

B. Allegations in the Complaint

In the complaint, without any factual elaboration, plaintiff includes the following

allegations:

1. On or about 11-30-19 to 3-15-20 never received a change of clean linen

2. Medical sick call request were put in 1-22-20, 2-11-20, 4-1-20, 5-12-20, 5-13-20,

6-10-20. Didn’t receive help until July or Aug.

3. Visit denied 1-19-20 & 1-5-20 Lindsay Taylor 1-9-20 Jayletta Fox-Riggs & 6-23-

20 12-22-20 Kristian Kellams 4-20-21 – 6-2921 Tysann Bowman 8-10-21 Ms.

Denilla Jenkins 8-31-21 Shereasa Warner 10-19-21 Curtis Holman never came to

get me for visit 5-24-22 Talitha Williams 7-19-22 Iyann Sullivan 9-29-20 Lindsey

Taylor

4. Mail is being held or returned to sender. On or about 9-8-21 I was allowed to look

in property and found $100 money order and 6 pieces of mail not received. 1-12-

22 received pictures sprayed with unknown liquid

5. Self help programs are not available to PC inmates

6. Mental Health from the time I was incarcerated in PC until 4-15-22 was the first

time I was able to see them and I had to do a hunger strike to be seen.

7. Food Service not 2800 calories per day

8. Maint[en]ance 4-15-22 Mold issue came 7-21-22, Oct of 2020 to 4-15-22 never

fixed leaking toilet

9. Recreation we have a gym but we never go

10. Phone service over charge to talk to family and friends

11. Commissary over charge

(Doc. 1-1, Complaint at PageID 10).

As relief, plaintiff seeks money damages. (Id. at PageID 11).

C. Analysis

The Court understands plaintiff’s complaint to be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which

provides that “[e]very person who, under the color of any statute . . . subjects, or causes to be

subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or

immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured . . . .” 42

U.S.C. § 1983. As noted above, in order to avoid dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), “a

complaint must contain sufficient factual matter . . . to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

face,” which requires that “plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at

678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 570) (internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, the

complaint does not include any factual allegations against the named defendants. Plaintiff merely

provides a list of incidents without specifying what defendants did or failed to do that he claims

resulted in a violation of his rights. (Doc. 1-1, Complaint at PageID 10). Such “naked assertion[s]

devoid of further factual enhancement” fail to meet the basic pleading standard under Twombly.

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Plaintiff has pled insufficient factual content to state a claim for relief. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at

5. See, e.g., Miller v. Ohio Dep’t. Rehab. & Corr., Case No. 1:20-cv-597, 2020 WL 5369059, at

*2 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 5, 2020) (“Without any allegations of wrongdoing on the part of the named

defendants the complaint is subject to dismissal.”) (Report & Recommendation), adopted, 2020

WL 5230886 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 2, 2020).

Accordingly, because plaintiff has failed to state an actionable claim against the named

defendants, the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and

1915A(b).

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:

1. The plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§

1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b).

2. The Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that for the foregoing reasons an

appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in good faith

and therefore deny plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114

F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997).

NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections

to this Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served

with a copy thereof. That period may be extended further by the Court on timely motion by either

side for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the portion(s) of the R&R objected to,

and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. A party shall

respond to an opponent’s objections within FOURTEEN DAYS after being served with a copy

of those objections. Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit

rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947

(6th Cir. 1981).

Date: February 8, 2023 /s/ Caroline H. Gentry

Caroline H. Gentry

United States Magistrate Judge