Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Robert A. Martinez, Jr., Petitioner v. Lucas County Jail

Case: 3:21-cv-01900-JRK Doc#: 7 Filed: 02/10/22 lof4. PagelD#:37

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

ROBERT A. MARTINEZ, JR.,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 3:21 CV 1900

JUDGE JAMES R. KNEPP II

v.

LUCAS COUNTY JAIL, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND

ORDER

Introduction

Pro se Plaintiff Robert A. Martinez, Jr. filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §

1983 against the Lucas County Jail, “Head of Medical Department”, “Supervisors of Medical

Department”, “Guards”, and “Transportation Officers (all three shifts)”. See Doc. 1. The basis of

Plaintiffs claim is that he was denied prescribed medication while in jail for 30 days in 2018.

See id.

Plaintiff also filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 2). That

Application is granted.

Background

Plaintiff alleges he was detained in the Lucas County Jail for 30 days in 2018. (Doc. 1, at

2). He contends he had been taking the prescription medication Suboxone for thirteen years to

combat his opioid addiction and without such medication would suffer detoxification symptoms.

Id. He states the jail denied him the medication and his mental health deteriorated. Id. His family

repeatedly requested he be transported to a hospital where he could detoxify under the

supervision of medical personnel. Id. Instead, he was placed in an isolation cell. Id. He claims he

Case: 3:21-cv-01900-JRK Doc#: 7 Filed: 02/10/22 2 of 4. PagelD#:38

was found unresponsive and suffering from a seizure and was transported to St. Vincent

Hospital. Id. He was then transferred to another jail facility from the hospital, and “released to

the streets in a totally] delusional state of mind.” Id. Plaintiff explains he had no idea how he

made it home, could not function in the days after returning home, and has not been the same

since his release. Id. He seeks monetary damages for violation of unspecified constitutional

rights. Id. at 2-3. He also lists the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) as a basis for relief.

Id. at 2. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. Id. at 3.

Standard of Review

Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364,

365 (1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kemer, 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

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

2

Case: 3:21-cv-01900-JRK Doc#: 7 Filed: 02/10/22 3 of 4. PagelD#:39

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, Plaintiff has not identified a viable Defendant against whom these

claims can be asserted. First, County Jails are not sui juris, meaning they are not separate legal

entities 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 sheriffs office is not a

legal entity that is capable of being sued”); Black v. Montgomery Cty. Common Pleas Court, No.

3:18-CV-00123, 2018 WL 2473560, at *1 (S.D. Ohio June 4, 2018) (finding Common Pleas

Court not sui juris). Jails are merely subunits of the County. The claims against the jail fail as a

matter of law.

Second, Plaintiff vaguely identifies the Jail Medical Department Supervisors, the Jail

Guards and the Transportation Officers as Defendants. He does not identify any particular

individual within those broad categories who participated in the actions he alleges. Claims under

Title II of the ADA can only be asserted against a state or local government. 42 U.S.C. §

12131(1)(A). The ADA does not authorize claims against public employees or supervisors in

their individual capacities. Williams v. McLemore, 247 F. App’x 1, 8 (6th Cir. 2007) (“We have

held repeatedly that the ADA does not permit public employees or supervisors to be sued in their

individual capacities.”); Lee v. Mich. Parole Bd., 104 F. App’x 490, 493 (6th Cir. 2004) (finding

that the ADA does not impose liability upon individuals). Further, Plaintiffs claims under 42

3

Case: 3:21-cv-01900-JRK Doc#: 7 Filed: 02/10/22 4of 4. PagelD#:40

U.S.C. § 1983 fail because he did not identify any individuals alleged to be personally involved

in the activities giving rise to his claims. Plaintiff cannot establish the liability of any defendant

absent a clear showing the defendant 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). General allegations

directed at the entire department are not sufficient to state a claim.

Finally, the statutes of limitations for both ADA and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims have

expired. Both ADA and § 1983 claims are governed by a two-year statute of limitations.

McCormick v. Miami Univ., 693 F.3d 654, 662-64 (6th Cir. 2012) (ADA claims); Hull v.

Cuyahoga Valley Joint Vocational Sch. Dist. Bd. ofEduc., 926 F.2d 505, 510 (6th Cir. 1991) (§

1983 claims). Plaintiff indicates these events took place while he was in the Lucas County Jail

for 30 days in June 2018. He filed this action in October 2021, well beyond the two-year statute

of limitations.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, good cause appearing, it is

ORDERED that Plaintiffs Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2), be and

the same hereby is, GRANTED; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e);

and the Court

FURTHER CERTIFIES, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this

decision could not be taken in good faith.

s/ James R. Knepp II______________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

Case: 3:21-cv-01900-JRK Doc#: 8 Filed: u_.^j/22 1 of 1. PagelD#:41

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

CASE NO. 3:21 CV 1900

ROBERT A. MARTINEZ, JR.,

JUDGE JAMES R. KNEPPII

Plaintiffs,

v.

JUDGMENT ENTRY

LUCAS COUNTY JAIL, ef a!..

Defendants.

For the reasons stated in this Court’s Memorandum of Opinion, this action is dismissed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 51915(e). Further, the Court CERTIFIES pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3)

that an appeal from this decisioncould not be taken in good faith.

■7.

-—)

3>-

s/ James R. Knew II______________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

A,

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 22-3209

FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

Nov 16, 2022

DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk

ROBERT A. MARTINEZ, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

LUCAS COUNTY, OH JAIL,

Defendant-Appellee.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF

OHIO

)

)

ORDER

Before: McKEAGUE, STRANCH, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.

Robert A. Martinez, Jr., an Ohio resident proceeding pro se, appeals the district court1 s

judgment dismissing his civil action. He has also moved for the appointment of counsel, in part

because he has epilepsy. This case has been referred to a panel of the court that, upon examination,

unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).

Martinez filed a civil complaint against the Lucas County Jail in Toledo, Ohio and several

unnamed individuals associated with the jail, including the head of the medical department, the

supervisors of the medical department, the guards, and the transportation officers. Martinez

alleged that, while he was incarcerated at the jail for 30 days in June 2018, the defendants refused

to provide him his prescription medication, Suboxone, which he had been taking for 13 years, and

denied his family's requests to allow him to detoxify safely in a medical facility, instead placing

him in an isolation cell. As a result, Martinez alleges that he had a seizure and his mental condition

deteriorated. Martinez’s complaint identified the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as a

£

No. 22-3209

-2basis for relief and sought monetary damages. Martinez also moved for the appointment of

counsel, arguing that he needed counsel to assist him with obtaining medical and jail records.

Upon initial screening, the district court construed the complaint as being brought under

42 U.S .C. § 1983 and the ADA and dismissed it concluding that Martinez’s claims were untimely

and that he failed to state-acclaim on_ which relief could be granted. The district court did not

explicitly address Martinez’s motion to appoint counsel. The court later denied Martinez’s motipn

for reconsideration.

On appeal, Martinez argues that the district court erred by dismissing his complaint and

failing to appoint him counsel. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of Martinez’s

complaint. See J. Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., 938 F.3d 281, 292 (6th Cir. 2019); Davis v.

Prison Health Servs., 679 F.3d 433,437 (6th Cir. 2012).

The limitations period applicable to a claim brought under § 1983 and the ADA in Ohio is

two years, running from the time that the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury giving

rise to his action. See J. Endres, 938 F.3d at 292. Martinez knew of his injury in June 2018, but

he did not file his complaint until over three years later in October 2021. And he has not identified

any basis for concluding that he is entitled to tolling that is sufficient to render his complaint timely.

See Bishop v. Children's Ctr. for Developmental Enrichment, 618 F.3d 533, 537 (6th Cir. 2010)

(noting that, when a statute of limitations is borrowed from state law, the state’s tolling provisions

also apply unless they are inconsistent with the federal policy underlying the cause of action).

Thus, the district court properly dismissed Martinez’s complaint as untimely.

The district court also did not err in failing to appoint Martinez counsel because he has not

shown that his case involves an exceptional rircnmstanpp that would warrant-such an appointment.

See Lanier v. Bryant, 332 F.3d 999,1006 (6th Cir. 2003).

No. 22-3209

-3-

For these reasons, we DENY Martinez’s motion to appoint counsel and AFFIRM the

district court’s judgment.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

Deborah S. Hunt, Clerk

Additional material

from this filing is

available in the

Clerk's Office.