Douglas v. City of Cleveland et al

Filing 3

Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis; dismissing this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e). The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, re 1 2 . Judge Christopher A. Boyko on 05/18/2011. (M,M)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

CORNELIUS DOUGLAS, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF CLEVELAND, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:11CV0586
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

Plaintiff pro se Cornelius Douglas Jr. filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the
City of Cleveland, Frank M. Zagami, an Officer employed by the City and 10 John and Jane Does.
Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 2).
Plaintiff alleges that agents of the City inspected his property and found violations. He
agreed to have the repairs made. A few months later he was contacted by a contractor who informed
him that an agent of the City had given him Plaintiff’s name to have the contractor make the repairs.
The contractor assured Plaintiff that his company was doing business with the City and was
reputable. Plaintiff, believing that the City sent him the contractor, paid $1,000.00 to begin work on
the roof. He also paid another contractor $3,5000.00 to work on the inside of the house.
Each contractor assured Plaintiff they were licensed to do business in the City. However,
the contractors never returned. Plaintiff wrote to the City prosecutor regarding the needed repairs
and the theft by the contractors. About a year later, the prosecutor contacted him and advised him
that his complaint and concerns were being reviewed, and that if he agreed to pay his property taxes,
the City would not have his property declared a hazard and destroyed. Plaintiff explained that after

the theft of his money, he could not make repairs and also pay taxes as he was on a fixed income.
On July 25, 2007, his property was again inspected and 13 violations were found. Between August
and December 2007, Plaintiff discovered that the City has allowed the entire City to become a
dumping site. He alleges that the City is discriminating against him because it has not threatened to
tear down or demolish the properties it owns and has failed to protect the rights of senior citizens
while allowing its white citizens to live, own and maintain properties that are waste sites, dumping
cites and deplorable to the African American community. Zagami allegedly violated his right to due
process by failing to investigate his complaints of theft and fraud.
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365
(1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the district court is required to
dismiss an 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). For the reasons stated below, this action is dismissed pursuant to section
1915(e).
Whenever there is a doubt about jurisdiction, the Court has the responsibility of considering
sua sponte whether it exists. Kentucky Press Ass'n, Inc. v. Kentucky, 454 F.3d 505, 508 (6th
Cir.2006).” If a claim is unripe, federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction and the Complaint
must be dismissed.” Arnett v. Meyers, 281 F.3d 552, 562 (6th Cir.2002). The Supreme Court has
set forth two criteria to determine whether a claim is ripe for adjudication. Williamson County
Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985). First, “a claim
that the application of government regulations effects a taking of a property interest is not ripe until

2

the government entity charged with implementing the regulations has reached a final decision
regarding the application of the regulations to the property at issue.” Id. at 186. Second, “a takings
claim is not ripe until the property owner seeks compensation through the procedures the State has
provided for doing so.” Id. at 194. See Monfort Supply Co. v. Hamilton County Bd. of Zoning
Appeals, 2006 WL 3692533 * 8 (S.D. Ohio, Dec. 12, 2006).
According to the Complaint, the City of Cleveland has not implemented any taking of
Plaintiff’s property. All that has occurred is the alleged threat. Plaintiff has not stated a procedural
or substantive due process claim. Peters v. Fair, 427 F.3d 1035, 1038 (6th Cir.2005); HornbeakDenton v. Myers, 361 Fed.Appx. 684, 688 (6th Cir. 2010). Thus, this Court has no jurisdiction over
this matter.
Further, Zagami must be dismissed as a party defendant. Plaintiff has no constitutional,
statutory, or common law right to require a public official to investigate or prosecute a crime.
Colston v. McLeod, 2011 WL 673941 * 7 (W.D. Mich., Feb. 17, 2011).
John and Jane Does are included as parties. However, there is nothing in the Complaint
pertaining to them.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted. This action is
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3),
that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.

s/Christopher A. Boyko
_________________________________
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Date: May 18, 2011

3