Shabazz v. Mason et al

Filing 4

Memorandum Opinion and Order: William Mason is dismissed from this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e), and the court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from his dismissal could not be taken in good fa ith. Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The Clerk's Office is directed to forward the appropriate documents to the U.S. Marshal for service of process on the remaining defendants. A copy of this order shall be included with the documents to be served on those defendants. Judge Sara Lioi on 9/27/2011. (P,J) Modified text on 9/28/2011 (S,HR).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

MALIK SHABAZZ,
PLAINTIFF,
vs.

WILLIAM MASON, et al,

DEFENDANTS.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:11cv1185
JUDGE SARA LIOI

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND
ORDER

On June 9, 2011, plaintiff pro se Malik Shabazz filed this in forma pauperis 42
U.S.C. ' 1983 action against Cuyahoga County Prosecutor William Mason, and the following
Cleveland Police officers: P.O. Siefer, P.O. Rivera, P.O. Ginley, and P.O. Gulas. The complaint
alleges Mason prosecuted Shabazz on charges that were not even formally lodged. It is further
alleged that the defendant Cleveland Police Officers assaulted Shabazz while he was handcuffed,
punching, kicking, stomping and dragging him. Shabazz suffered injuries to his face from the
alleged assault, and now has migraines and vision problems.
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 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).
While the claims against the defendant police officers may have arguable merit, the

same cannot be said regarding the claim against Prosecutor Mason. Prosecutors are immune
from liability for actions taken within the scope of their official duties when functioning as
an advocate for the State. Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993); Imbler v. Pachtman,
424 U.S. 409 (1976). There is no indication in the complaint that Mason acted outside that
capacity with regard to the actions of which plaintiff complains.
For the foregoing reasons, William Mason is dismissed from this action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e), and the court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(a)(3)
that an appeal from his dismissal could not be taken in good faith. Plaintiff=s request to
proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The Clerk's Office is directed to forward the
appropriate documents to the U.S. Marshal for service of process on the remaining
defendants. A copy of this order shall be included with the documents to be served on
those defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2011
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE