Hinkle v. Mingo

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

JAMES H. HINKLE,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:24-cv-3877

vs. Judge Algenon L. Marbley

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

JUDGE STEPHANIE MINGO,

Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is now before the Court for an initial screen of Plaintiff’s Complaint under 28

U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A to identify cognizable claims and to recommend dismissal of

Plaintiff’s Complaint, or any portion of it, which 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. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A.

For the reasons that follow, the Undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court DISMISS

Plaintiff’s claims in their entirety.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

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 . . . .

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii); Denton, 504 U.S. at 31. 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).

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

1 Formerly 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).

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)).

II. ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, proceeding without the assistance of counsel, asserts claims for the third time2

against Franklin County Municipal Court Judge Stephanie Mingo arising out of a lawsuit filed in

the Franklin County Municipal Court to which Plaintiff is a party. (Compl. ECF No. 1-1.)

2 The Undersigned notes that this Court already has dismissed substantially similar claims

against Defendant Judge Mingo on these grounds. See Marshall v. Thacker, No. 2:21-CV-4838,

2021 WL 4905201 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 21, 2021); Hinkle v. Dunbar, et al., No. 21-CV-4447, 2023

WL 2154684 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 22, 2023); Hinkle v. Mingo, et al., No. 21-CV-4690, 2023 WL

2154684 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 22, 2023). The Undersigned also takes judicial notice that this action

repeats many of the same allegations in the previous cases.

Liberally construing Plaintiff’s Complaint, he alleges that Judge Mingo lacked

jurisdiction. (Id. PageID 10.) Plaintiff appears to take issue with certain adverse rulings from

Defendant Judge Mingo. (Id.) Plaintiff makes a general allegation that the “mayor’s court has

set a bad precedence in case 2016 EVH 060329 of violating the peoples’ God given rights

protected by the United States of America Constitution (unlawful search and seizure of privately

owned property) and State Law.” (Id. PageID 11.)

Plaintiff seeks the following relief: “I am seeking to obtain the original complainers’

name and address and adding that I am seeking immediate judgement in my favor for the case

2016 EVH 060329 be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and have everything dropped in the

ruling including anything with stephanie marshall [sic] and the fines.” (Id.)

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed because no matter how liberally the Court

construes Plaintiff’s allegations, Defendant Judge Mingo is entitled to absolute immunity from

civil liability as a state court judge for the Franklin County Municipal Court. Padgett v.

Kentucky, No. 1:21-CV-12, 2021 WL 215647, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 21, 2021) (“Judges retain

absolute immunity from liability even if they act maliciously or corruptly, as long as they are

performing judicial acts and have jurisdiction over the subject matter giving rise to the suit

against them.”) (collecting cases). Plaintiff does not plausibly allege any exceptions to the

judicial immunity doctrine.

Although the judicial inquiry ends there, the Undersigned notes that Plaintiff’s claims

also are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which “bars lower federal courts from

conducting appellate review of final state-court judgments.” Berry v. Schmitt, 688 F.3d 290, 298

(6th Cir. 2012). As a result, this Court has no authority to overturn a judgment in the underlying

Franklin County Municipal Court proceedings, as Plaintiff desires. McCormick v. Braverman,

451 F.3d 382, 393 (6th Cir. 2006) (“If the source of the injury is [a] state court decision, then the

Rooker–Feldman doctrine would prevent the district court from asserting jurisdiction.”).

IV. CONCLUSION

For all of these reasons, the Undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court DISMISS

Plaintiff’s claims in the entirety.

PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS

If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and Recommendation, it

may, within fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties objections to the Report and

Recommendation, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part in

question, as well as the basis for objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

Response to objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

The parties are specifically advised that the failure to object to the Report and

Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and

waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. See, e.g., Pfahler v. Nat’l Latex

Prod. Co., 517 F.3d 816, 829 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that “failure to object to the magistrate

judge’s recommendations constituted a waiver of [the defendant’s] ability to appeal the district

court’s ruling”); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that

defendant waived appeal of district court’s denial of pretrial motion by failing to timely object to

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation). Even when timely objections are filed,

appellate review of issues not raised in those objections is waived. Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d

981, 994 (6th Cir. 2007) (“[A] general objection to a magistrate judge’s report, which fails to

specify the issues of contention, does not suffice to preserve an issue for appeal . . . .”) (citation

omitted)).

Date: OCTOBER 15, 2024 /s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers

ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE