Wilkins v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility

• Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
• Decided: June 9, 2022
• Docket: 1:22-cv-00018
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI

TEVYN NEVADA LEE WILKINS, : Case No. 1:22-cv-18 : Plaintiff, : : District Judge Matthew W. McFarland vs. : Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz : SOUTHERN OHIO CORRECTIONAL : FACILITY, et al., : : Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (SOCF), in Lucasville, Ohio, has filed a pro se civil rights action, which the Court construes as filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 Plaintiff alleges that SOCF, SOCF Warden Ronald Erdos, SOCF Inspector Linnea Mahlman, and SOCF Mailroom Lt. Mr. Haywood violated his constitutional rights by denying him school materials that he ordered by mail. (Doc. 1-1). By separate Order, plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. This matter is now 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).

1See Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Org., 441 U.S. 600, 624 (1979) (Powell, J., concurring) (“Section 1983 provides a private cause of action for the deprivation, under color of state law, of ‘rights . . . secured by the Constitution and laws.’”) (footnote omitted). I. Screening of Complaint A. Legal Standard In enacting the original in forma pauperis statute, 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.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989)). To prevent such abusive litigation, Congress has authorized federal courts to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint if they are satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious. Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and 1915A(b)(1). 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 also has authorized the sua sponte dismissal of complaints that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1). A complaint filed by a pro se plaintiff must be “liberally construed” and “held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). By the same token, however, 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 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also Hill, 630 F.3d at 470-71 (“dismissal standard articulated in Iqbal and Twombly governs dismissals for failure to

state a claim” under §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). “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 (citing 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. The complaint must “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93 (citations omitted). B. Plaintiff’s Complaint Plaintiff generally alleges that defendants improperly denied him school materials that he ordered by mail. However, aside from stating that defendant Mahlman and another individual, Major Bell, who is not named as a defendant,2 failed to properly investigate his

2To the extent that plaintiff asserts claims against non-defendants, those claims are subject to dismissal. “issues” (Doc. 1-1, at PageID 13), plaintiff fails to indicate how the individual defendants were involved in the alleged mishandling of his school materials.3 For relief, plaintiff seeks damages in the form of a reimbursement for the cost of the school materials and injunctive relief in the form of an investigation of the SOCF mailroom.

(Doc. 1-1, at PageID 14). C. Analysis For the following reasons, plaintiff’s complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B); 1915A(b). As an initial matter, any claims against the individual defendants in an official capacity must be dismissed to the extent that plaintiff seeks monetary damages. Absent an express waiver, a state is immune from damage suits under the Eleventh Amendment. P.R. Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, 506 U.S. 139, 144 (1993); Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 673 (1974). The State of Ohio has not constitutionally nor statutorily waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity in the federal courts. See Johns v. Supreme Court of Ohio, 753 F.2d 524,

527 (6th Cir. 1985); State of Ohio v. Madeline Marie Nursing Homes, 694 F.2d 449, 460-62 (6th Cir. 1982). The Eleventh Amendment bar extends to actions where the state is not a named party, but where the action is essentially one for the recovery of money from the state. Edelman, 415 U.S. at 663; Ford Motor Company v. Dep’t of Treasury, 323 U.S. 459, 464 (1945). A suit against defendants in their official capacities would, in reality, be a way of pleading the action against the entity of which defendants are agents. Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). Thus, actions against state officials in their official capacities are included in this

3Rather, plaintiff simply alleges, without elaboration, that unidentified “SOCF administration” hung up the phone, were “hateful,” or were unresponsive when his grandmother and fiancé called “about this matter.” (Doc. 1-1, at PageID 13). bar. Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70-71 (1989); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 (1974). See also Colvin v. Caruso, 605 F.3d 282, 289 (6th Cir. 2010) (citing Cady v. Arenac Co., 574 F.3d 334, 344 (6th Cir. 2009)) (“[A]n official-capacity suit against a state official is deemed to be a suit against the state and is thus barred by the Eleventh Amendment,

absent a waiver.” (citation and ellipsis omitted)). Therefore, the individual defendants are immune from suit in their official capacities to the extent that plaintiff seeks monetary damages. Next, plaintiff’s claims against SOCF are subject to dismissal. Neither a prison nor a state corrections department is a “person” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Will, 491 U.S. at 71. Therefore, plaintiff’s complaint against SOCF fails to state a claim for relief under 1983. Further, although prisoners retain the First Amendment right to receive mail, subject to reasonable limitations for “legitimate penological objectives,” Sallier v. Brooks, 343 F.3d 868, 873-74 (6th Cir. 2003), plaintiff’s conclusory allegations fail to describe specific actions taken by the defendants that violated his rights.4 A plaintiff cannot establish the liability of any

defendant absent a clear showing that the defendant was personally involved in the activities which form the basis of the alleged unconstitutional behavior. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 376-77 (1976); Heyerman v. Cty. of Calhoun, 680 F.3d 642, 647 (6th Cir. 2012). See also Frazier v. Michigan, 41 F. App’x 762, 764 (6th Cir. 2002) (“The court is not required to accept non-specific factual allegations and inferences or unwarranted legal conclusions.”). Plaintiff’s conclusory claims are therefore subject to dismissal. Additionally, to the extent that plaintiff alleges that defendant Mahlman failed to take corrective action after she was notified of plaintiff’s “issues,” such allegations are insufficient to

4As discussed below, plaintiff’s allegations that defendant Mahlman failed to take corrective action after being notified of plaintiff’s “issues” are insufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Prison officials whose only roles “involve their denial of administrative grievances and their failure to remedy the alleged [unconstitutional] behavior” cannot be liable under § 1983. Shehee v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295, 300 (6th Cir. 1999). Therefore, plaintiff’s allegations that this defendant failed to take corrective action are simply

insufficient to give rise to actionable § 1983 claim. Cf. Chappell v. Morgan, No. 2:15-cv-1110, 2016 WL 738098, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 25, 2016) (Kemp, M.J.) (Report & Recommendation) (citing Shehee, 199 F.3d at 300; Stewart v. Taft, 235 F. Supp.2d 763, 767 (N.D. Ohio 2002)), adopted, 2016 WL 1109093 (S.D. Mar. 21, 2016) (Watson, J.). Finally, to the extent that plaintiff seeks reimbursement for lost school materials, such claims are subject to dismissal. Before plaintiff may challenge the alleged deprivation of his personal property in federal court, plaintiff must first “plead . . . that state remedies for redressing the wrong are inadequate.” Vicory v. Walton, 721 F.2d 1062, 1066 (6th Cir. 1983). See also Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984); Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 543-44 (1981), rev’d on other grounds, Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-31 (1986). “If satisfactory state

procedures are provided in a procedural due process case, then no constitutional deprivation has occurred despite the injury.” Jefferson v. Jefferson Cty. Pub. Sch. Sys., 360 F.3d 583, 587-88 (6th Cir. 2004). A plaintiff “may not seek relief under [42 U.S.C. §] 1983 without first pleading and proving the inadequacy of state or administrative processes and remedies to redress [plaintiff’s] due process violations.” Id. at 588. Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently plead that the post-deprivation tort remedies available to him under Ohio law are inadequate to adjudicate his property-loss claim. See Fox v. Van Oosterum, 176 F.3d 342, 349 (6th Cir. 1999) (citing Hudson, 468 U.S. at 534-36) (“State tort remedies generally satisfy the postdeprivation process requirement of the Due Process Clauses.”).° Accordingly, in sum, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and should be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B); 1915 A(b). IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT: 1. The complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1), for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 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. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds, Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 203 (2007).

Tune 9, 2022 Herm 5 Rethond KAREN L. LITKOVITZ United States Magistrate Judge

SE or example, plaintiff has not alleged that the filing of a complaint in the Ohio Court of Claims is inadequate. See Haynes v. Marshall, 887 F.2d 700, 704 (6th Cir. 1989).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI

TEVYN NEVADA LEE WILKINS, : Case No. 1:22-cv-18 : Plaintiff, : : District Judge Matthew W. McFarland vs. : Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz : SOUTHERN OHIO CORRECTIONAL : FACILITY, et al., : : Defendants. :

NOTICE

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. This period may be extended further by the Court on timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report and Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring on the record at an oral hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such portions of it as all parties may agree upon, or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party’s objections WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. 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).