Good v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction
Filing
3
Memorandum Opinion and Order For the reasons stated in the Order, the Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2 ) is granted and the Complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, but without prejudice. TheCourt certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 19l5(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Related document 1 . Signed by Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 5/23/2014. (K,K)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
DANIEL PAUL GOOD,
Plaintiff,
V.
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHAB. &
CORRECTIONS,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1: 14 CV 0875
JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER
Prose prisoner Daniel Paul Good filed the above-captioned civil rights action against the
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (O.D.R.C.) Mr. Good, who is incarcerated at
Mansfield Correctional Institution ("ManCi"), complains ODRC has failed to protect him from
assaults by other inmates and placed him in filthy living conditions. He maintains that these repeated
episodes amount to cruel and unusual punislunent under the Eighth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, made actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons that follow, however, Mr.
Good cannot proceed with this action against ODRC
Standard of Review
A district court is expressly authorized to dismiss any civi l 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 adefendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §1915A; Onapolis v. Lamanna,
70 F. Supp.2d 809 (N .D. Ohio 1999)(if prisoner's civil rights complaint fails to pass muster under
screening process of Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), district court should sua sponte dismiss
complaint); see 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).
42
u.s.c. §1983
Liability
Under section 1983, the statute provides in relevant part that:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,
custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of
Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the
United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action
at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except
that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or
omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief
shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or
declaratory relief was unavailable.
42 U .S.C. § 1983(emphasis added). Clearly, in order for a defendant to be held liable for any alleged
deprivation of rights under § 1983, the defendant would have to be deemed a "person."
The
Supreme Court has held, however, that "neither a State nor its officials acting in their official
-2-
capacities are 'persons' under § 1983." Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 591 U.S. 58, 71
(1989). The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction is an agency of the State of Ohio.
Thus, it cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Mr. Good cannot maintain a claim against
ODRC under that statute.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the Motion to Proced In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is
granted and the Complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S .C. § 191 SA , but without prejudice. The
Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 19 l 5(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be
taken in good faith. 1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DAN AARON POLSTER
UNITED STA TES DISTRICT JUDGE
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides:
An appeal may not be taken in forma pauper is if the trial court certifies that it is
not taken in good faith.
-3-
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?