Harrison v. State of Ohio
Filing
5
Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 12/2/11 dismissing this action pursuant to 28 USC Sec. 1915A. (Related Doc. 1 ) (M,G)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
------------------------------------------------------:
NICHOLAS HARRISON,
: CASE NO. 1:11-CV-1956
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
vs.
: OPINION & ORDER
: [Resolving Doc. No. 1]
STATE OF OHIO,
:
:
Defendant.
:
:
------------------------------------------------------JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Pro se Plaintiff Nicholas Harrison filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the
State of Ohio. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges he is being denied a speedy trial. He seeks
monetary damages.
I. Background
Plaintiff’s Complaint is very brief. He states:
Petitioner Pro se Nicholas Harrison seeks to pursue a civil action
in this honorable court due to ‘abuse of process’ which critically
affects Petitioner’s Constitutional Amendments. Petitioner’s
Constitutional rights were not met to standard procedure of law,
also due to ‘negligence’ and lack of prosecution in a ‘timely
manner’ in a lawful procedure to rights to federal and state
inmates.
ECF No. 1 at 1. He quotes the Fifth and Sixth Amendments in their entirety, and claims he has
been denied a speedy trial by the Cuyahoga County courts.
II. Legal Standard
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364,
365 (1982) (per curiam), a district court is expressly authorized to dismiss any civil action filed
by a prisoner seeking relief from a governmental 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);
see Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974) (citing numerous Supreme Court cases for
the proposition that attenuated or unsubstantial claims divest the district court of jurisdiction);
In re Bendectin Litig., 857 F.2d 290, 300 (6th Cir.1988) (recognizing that federal question
jurisdiction is divested by unsubstantial claims). 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 , 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949
(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. Plaintiff is not required to include detailed factual allegations,
but must provide more than “an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”
Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. 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).
III. Analysis
-2-
As an initial matter, the State of Ohio is immune from damages. The Eleventh
Amendment is an absolute bar to the imposition of liability upon States and their agencies.
Latham v. Office of Atty. Gen. of State of Ohio, 395 F.3d 261, 270 (6th Cir. 2005); Bouquett v.
Clemmer, 626 F. Supp. 46, 48 (S.D. Ohio 1985). Because the State of Ohio is the only
Defendant in this action, this case is subject to dismissal on this basis alone.
Moreover, even if this action were brought against the State of Ohio for some other form
of relief, this Court could not entertain Plaintiff’s claims. A federal court must decline to
interfere with pending state proceedings involving important state interests unless extraordinary
circumstances are present. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44-45 (1971). When a person is
the target of an ongoing state action involving important state matters, he or she cannot interfere
with the pending state action by maintaining a parallel federal action involving claims that could
have been raised in the state case. Watts v. Burkhart, 854 F.2d 839, 844-48 (6th Cir.1988). If
the state defendant files such a case, Younger abstention requires the federal court to defer to the
state proceeding. Id; see also Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 15 (1987). Based on
these principles, abstention is appropriate if: (1) state proceedings are on-going; (2) the state
proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford an adequate
opportunity to raise federal questions. Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar
Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982). Abstention is mandated whether the state court proceeding is
criminal, quasi-criminal, or civil in nature as long as federal court intervention “unduly
interferes with the legitimate activities of the State.” Younger, 401 U.S. at 44.
All three factors supporting abstention are present in this case. The issues presented in
the Complaint are clearly the subject of a state court criminal matter, which are of paramount
-3-
state interest. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 44-45. Furthermore, Plaintiff has not set forth facts
which reasonably suggest the Ohio courts cannot or will not provide an adequate opportunity
for him to raise his constitutional claims.1 Consequently, this Court is required to abstain from
intervening in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas proceedings.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 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.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 2, 2011
s/
James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1
Plaintiff attaches a portion of the docket from his criminal case. That docket reveals
Plaintiff failed to appear for trial and his bond was forfeited. Later, he failed to appear for a pretrial resulting in another bond forfeiture. Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Dismiss the Charges and
a Motion to Discharge for Delayed Trial in that court on September 29, 2011 and October 13, 2011
respectively. The common pleas court has not yet ruled on those Motions. See State of Ohio v.
Harrison, No. CR-09-520597 (Cuyahoga Cty Ct. Comm. Pl. indictment filed Feb. 5, 2009).
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas dockets can be viewed at:
http://cpdocket.cp.cuyahogacounty.us/
2
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides:
An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies that it is not
taken in good faith.
-4-
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?