Woods v. State of Ohio
Filing
3
Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing this action under section 1915A. Further, 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. Judge Dan A. Polster(C,KA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
ALMICHAEL WOODS,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF OHIO,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:11 CV 1717
JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER
On August 16, 2011, Plaintiff pro se Almichael Woods, an inmate at the Cuyahoga County
Jail, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the State of Ohio. The one page Complaint alleges Plaintiff
was arrested on November 14, 2008. He had an initial appearance on November 26, 2008, but “was
denied his preliminary hearing and indicted without being allowed to appear and defend in person
and with counsel; to review the evidence against him, to demand the nature and cause of the
accusations against him, to meet witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to procure
the attendance of witnesses on his behalf in violation of due process of the 14th Amendment of the
Constitution of the United States.” (ECF Doc 1). For the reasons stated below, this action is
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
A district court is expressly required to dismiss any civil action filed by a prisoner seeking
relief from a governmental officer or entity, as soon as possible after docketing, if the court
concludes that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if the
plaintiff seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §1915A;
Siller v. Dean, No. 99-5323, 2000 WL 145167 , at *2 (6th Cir. Feb. 1, 2000)
Principles requiring generous construction of pro se pleadings are not without limits.
Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1277 (4th Cir. 1985). A complaint must contain either
direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements of some viable legal theory to
satisfy federal notice pleading requirements. See Schied v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 859
F.2d 434, 437 (6th Cir. 1988). District courts are not required to conjure up questions never
squarely presented to them or to construct full blown claims from sentence fragments. Beaudette,
775 F.2d at 1278. To do so would "require ...[the courts] to explore exhaustively all potential claims
of a pro se plaintiff, ... [and] would...transform the district court from its legitimate advisory role to
the improper role of an advocate seeking out the strongest arguments and most successful strategies
for a party." Id.
Even liberally construed, the Complaint does not contain allegations reasonably suggesting
Plaintiff might have a valid federal claim. The purpose of a preliminary hearing is to determine
whether sufficient facts exist to allow the court to bind the accused over to the gand jury. State v.
Wigglesworth, 18 Ohio St.2d 171, 174(1969). There is no constitutional right to a preliminary
hearing, however, when an indictment is returned. Zaffino v. Konteh, 2006 WIL 2360902 * 4
(N.D.Ohio, Aug. 15, 2006); State ex rel. Pena v. Konteh, 2007 WL 2216967 *1 (Ohio App. 6th Dist.,
Aug. 1, 2007). Further, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to challenge "the very fact or duration of his
physical imprisonment, ... his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus." Preiser v. Rodriguez,
411 U.S. 475, 501 (1973)
Accordingly, this action is dismissed under section 1915A. Further, 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Dan Aaron Polster 11/4/11
DAN AARON POLSTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?