Harrison v. Ohio, State of

Filing 4

Memorandum Opinion and Order: Accordingly, 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. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 1/10/12. (LC,S)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Nicholas T. Harrison,
Plaintiff,
v.
State of Ohio,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:11 CV 2397
JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN

Memorandum of Opinion and Order

INTRODUCTION
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 in the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. He seeks monetary damages.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s Complaint is very brief and disjointed. He indicates he is bringing this action
because he believes the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas is violating his right to a
speedy trial. He states he has charges pending against him in Cuyahoga County and has been
unable to have all matters resolved in a timely manner. He contends he has not received filestamped copies of pro se motions he submitted in his criminal case. He claims that due to these
pending charges, he cannot participate in the Federal Bureau of Prisons drug programs or seek

release to a halfway house. He seeks $30,000.00 in damages.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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.1 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). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law or
fact when it is premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory or when the factual
contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. 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. The 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

1

An in forma pauperis claim may be dismissed sua sponte, without prior notice to the
plaintiff and without service of process on the defendant, if the court explicitly states that it is
invoking section 1915(e) [formerly 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)] and is dismissing the claim for one of the
reasons set forth in the statute. McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608-09 (6th Cir. 1997);
Spruytte v. Walters, 753 F.2d 498, 500 (6th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1054 (1986); Harris
v. Johnson, 784 F.2d 222, 224 (6th Cir. 1986); Brooks v. Seiter, 779 F.2d 1177, 1179 (6th Cir.
1985).
-2-

recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not meet this pleading standard. Id. In
reviewing the 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).
ANALYSIS
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, this is Plaintiff’s second attempt to bring these claims before the Court in a
civil rights action. In September 2011, Plaintiff filed Harrison v. State of Ohio, Case No. 1:11
CV 1956 (N.D. Ohio filed Sept. 16. 2011) asserting substantially similar claims against the
State of Ohio based on this same set of facts he alleges in this action. That case was assigned to
United States District Judge James S. Gwin, who dismissed the case on its merits on December
2, 2011.
The doctrine of res judicata dictates that a final judgment on the merits of a claim
precludes a party from bringing a subsequent lawsuit on the same claim or from raising a new
defense to defeat the prior judgment. Gargallo v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.,
918 F.2d 658, 660 (6th Cir. 1990). It bars relitigation of every issue actually brought before the
Court and every issue or defense that should have been raised in the previous action. Id. The
purpose of this doctrine is to promote the finality of judgments and thereby increase certainty,
discourage multiple litigation, and conserve judicial resources. Westwood Chemical Co. v.

-3-

Kulick, 656 F.2d 1224 (6th Cir. 1981). A subsequent action will be subject to a res judicata bar
only if there is an identity of the facts creating the right of action and of the evidence necessary
to sustain each action. Both of these requirements are met in this case. Plaintiff is therefore
precluded from litigating this matter for a second time.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Patricia A. Gaughan
PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
United States District Judge
Dated: 1/10/12

-4-