Johnson v. Mt Healthy Police

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

ANDRE KEITH JOHNSON, Case No. 1:25-cv-440

Plaintiff, McFarland, J.

Bowman, M.J.

v.

MT. HEALTHY POLICE,

Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

By separate Order issued this date, Plaintiff Andre Johnson has been conditionally

granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The complaint

is now before the Court for a sua sponte review 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 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). For the reasons that follow, the

undersigned recommends that the complaint be dismissed.

I. General Screening Authority

Congress has authorized federal courts to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint

if satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31

(1992); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A complaint may be dismissed as frivolous

when the plaintiff cannot make any claim with a rational or arguable basis in fact or

law. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328-29 (1989); see also Lawler v. Marshall, 898

F.2d 1196, 1198 (6th Cir. 1990). An action has no arguable legal basis when the

defendant is immune from suit or when plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest which

clearly does not exist. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. An action has no arguable factual basis

when the allegations are delusional or rise to the level of the irrational or “wholly

incredible.” Denton, 504 U.S. at 32; Lawler, 898 F.2d at 1199. The Court need not accept

as true factual allegations that are “fantastic or delusional” in reviewing a complaint for

frivolousness. Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 471 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S.

at 328).

Congress has also authorized the sua sponte dismissal of complaints which fail to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii).

Although a plaintiff's pro se complaint must be “liberally construed” and “held to less

stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” the complaint must “give

the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it

rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (per curiam) (quoting Estelle v.

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555

(2007) (internal citation and quotation omitted)). The complaint “must contain sufficient

factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at

570); see also Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010)(“dismissal standard

articulated in Iqbal and Twombly governs dismissals for failure to state a claim” under

§§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1)).

“A claim has facial plausibility when the 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). The Court must accept

all well-pleaded factual allegations as true, but need not “accept as true a legal conclusion

couched as a factual allegation.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting Papasan v. Allain,

478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). Although a complaint need not contain “detailed factual

allegations,” it must provide “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-

me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). A pleading

that offers “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause

of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders

“naked assertion[s]” devoid of “further factual enhancement.” Id. at 557.

II. The Allegations of Plaintiff’s Complaint

Plaintiff has tendered his complaint on a standard form used by pro se litigants to

allege civil rights violations. As the defendant, he names only the “Mt. Healthy Police.”

Plaintiff alleges subject matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) based on the

alleged violations of his civil rights. See generally 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1-1, PageID

5). In his handwritten “Statement of Claim,” plaintiff includes the following single-sentence

allegation:

March 16 2025 at White Casle [sic] Mt Healthy Police and Springfield came

in and took me off the Toilet ass naked infected me with needles of

something assa[u]lted me and tried to put something in my ass and they’ve

threaten[ed] to kill me.

(Doc. 1-1, PageID 6.) As relief, Plaintiff states simply: “I want protection.” (Id., PageID 7.)

III. Analysis

Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed because it is “wholly incredible.” In

addition, Plaintiff appears to be suing the Village of Mt. Healthy Police Department, which

is not sui juris and is incapable of being 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”) (citations omitted); Taylor v. Ross, No.

1:21-cv-600, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166470, 2021 WL 3930366, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Sep. 2,

2021) (finding Akron Police Department not sui juris); Struckman v. Vill. of Lockland

Police, No. 1:17-cv-828, 2018 WL 4635981, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 27, 2018), report and

recommendation adopted, No. 1:17-cv-828, 2018 WL 6069092 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 20,

2018). If Plaintiff intended to sue the Village of Mt. Healthy instead, he would have had to

allege facts showing that a municipal “policy or custom” was the “moving force” behind

any alleged violation of his constitutional rights. Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of

New York, 436 U.S. 658, 694-95 (1978). “It is firmly established that a municipality, or ...

a county, cannot be held liable under § 1983 for an injury inflicted solely by its employees

or agents.” Gregory v. Shelby County, Tenn., 220 F.3d 433, 441 (6th Cir. 2000) (citing

Monell, 436 U.S. at 694). Last, Plaintiff appears to seek a type of injunctive relief that this

Court has no power to grant – to provide some type of broad and undefined “protection”

to Plaintiff from further threat from the Defendant over an undefined period of time.

In short, Plaintiff’s allegations consist of a conclusory and implausible accusation

that does not withstand analysis under the minimal pleading standards established by

Iqbal and Twombly. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state any viable claim under federal law.

Because the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, it should

be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B).

III. Conclusion and Recommendation

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT:

1. This case be DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for

failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted;

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

reasons an appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation

would not be taken in good faith and therefore should deny Plaintiff leave to

appeal in forma pauperis;

s/Stephanie K. Bowman __

Stephanie K. Bowman

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

ANDRE KEITH JOHNSON, Case No. 1:25-cv-440

Plaintiff, McFarland, J.

Bowman, M.J.

v.

MT. HEALTHY POLICE,

Defendant.

NOTICE

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 of

the filing date of this R&R. 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

(14) 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).