Johnson v. Walcott et al

Filing 11

Memorandum Opinion and Order denying plaintiff's Motion for a temporary injunction and this action is sua sponte dismissed pursuant to the Younger doctrine and Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477. Defendants' motion to dismiss or stay the action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is denied as moot (related docs 3 and 10 ). Judge Dan A. Polster(C,KA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

MARVIN JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CLAUDETTE WALCOTT, et al.,

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:15 CV 0073
JUDGE

DAN

AARON

POLSTER

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

Plaintiff Marvin Johnson has filed a pro se complaint in this action alleging claims against
the defendants, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, for “Embezzlement, Racketeering, Fraud, Breach of
Oath of Office, Extortion, Conspiracy to Commit Kidnapping” and for an “Injunction to Remove
Driver[’s] License and Registration Block and Outstanding Warrant For [the Plaintiff’s Arrest].”
(Doc. No. 1.) The plaintiff alleges that, on June 29, 2014, he was issued a traffic citation by
Cleveland Police Officer Daniel Smith for changing course and for a seatbelt violation. (Id. at p.
4, Ex. C.) He was subsequently notified and summoned to appear regarding the citation in
Cleveland Municipal Court, but the plaintiff declined to appear. The Municipal Court docket
indicates that, as a result of the plaintiff’s failure to appear at scheduled court hearings, a warrant
block was placed on the plaintiff’s driver’s license and vehicle registration, prohibiting him from
renewing his driver’s license and vehicle registration at the Bureau of Motor Vehicles. In addition,

he was notified by the Municipal Court that efforts would be made to collect the fine imposed for
his traffic violations. (Id., Ex. D.) A warrant was also issued for his arrest, and he was notified that
in order to avoid being arrested, he must post a bond or pay his outstanding fine. (Id., Ex. G.)
The plaintiff contests his traffic citation in this case and contends the driver’s license and
registration block and outstanding warrant for his arrest are efforts by the defendants to “extort
money” from him. He seeks damages from Officer Smith and five other defendants, who are
magistrates and a judge of the Cleveland Municipal Court. He has also filed a motion for a
temporary injunction to remove the driver’s license and registration block and the outstanding
warrant for his arrest ordered in the traffic case. (Doc. No. 3.) The defendants have responded to
the plaintiff’s motion for a temporary injunction and have filed a motion to dismiss or stay
proceedings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (Doc. No. 10.)
Generally, a district court may not sua sponte dismiss a complaint where the filing fee has
been paid unless the court gives the plaintiff the opportunity to amend the complaint. See Apple
v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999). However, where a complaint is “totally implausible,
attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion,” the district
court may sua sponte dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and need not
afford the plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint. Id. (citing Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S.
528, 536 (1974)).
The plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, and his motion for a temporary injunction is denied
pursuant to Apple v. Glenn because he purports to ask this Court to reject and overturn orders issued
by the Cleveland Municipal Court made during the course of an on-going criminal state traffic
proceeding. This Court will not exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over such an action.

-2-

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). Abstention is appropriate if: (1) a state proceeding are on-going; (2) the state
proceeding implicates important state interests; and (3) the state proceeding affords 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 warranted whether the state court proceeding is criminal,
quasi-criminal, or civil in nature to prevent federal court intervention that unduly interferes with
“the legitimate activities of the States.” Younger, 401 U.S. at 44.
The factors warranting abstention are all present here. The issues presented in this action
are clearly the subject of the on-going state-court criminal traffic matter, which is of paramount
state interest and importance. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 44–45. In addition, the plaintiff has not
set forth facts which reasonably suggest the Ohio Municipal Court cannot or will not provide the
plaintiff an adequate opportunity to raise his federal claims in the state proceeding. Indeed, the
Municipal Court docket indicates that the plaintiff was afforded opportunities to be heard and filed
motions in the traffic matter, but the plaintiff did not appear at scheduled court hearings. In light
of the foregoing, this Court will not interfere with, or intervene in, the on-going criminal traffic
proceeding in Cleveland Municipal Court, and this action must be dismissed pursuant to Younger
and Apple v. Glenn.
Although generally the Younger doctrine requires a federal court to stay an action for
damages during the pendency of a state action on the same matter, a court may dismiss a damage
claim, rather than hold it in abeyance, when the plaintiff has failed to state a viable claim for relief.
See Moore v. City of Garfield Heights, No. 1: 12 CV 1700, 2012 WL 5845369, at * 5 (N.D. Ohio

-3-

Nov. 19, 2012) (dismissing §1983 claims arising from municipal court traffic, criminal, and small
claims proceedings). Dismissal rather than a stay is appropriate here because the plaintiff has failed
to state a cognizable claim against the defendants under §1983. Defendants Claudette Walcott,
William F.B. Vodrey, Jolan B. Vagi, Pablo A. Castro, and Ronald Aldrine are all either magistrates
or a judge of the Cleveland Municipal Court, and the plaintiff's claims against them all purport to
arise from the on-going state traffic proceeding. Judicial officers are entitled to absolute immunity
for liability arising out of acts performed in the exercise of their judicial functions. Mitchell v.
Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985). See Metzenbaum v. Nugent, 55 Fed. App'x 729 (6th Cir. 2003)
(upholding district court's sua sponte dismissal of a complaint under Apple v. Glenn because the
named defendant, a judge, was entitled to absolute judicial immunity); Forbush v. Zaleski, 20 Fed.
App'x 481 (6th Cir. 2001) (same). The plaintiff alleges no facts suggesting that any of the judicial
officers he names as defendants are not entitled to absolute immunity.
Further, to assert a cognizable claim against Officer Smith under §1983, the plaintiff must
allege Officer Smith deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United
States, but the plaintiff has not alleged any cognizable constitutional claim against Officer Smith.
The only wrongful conduct the plaintiff alleges Officer Smith engaged in is that Officer Smith used
“emergency lights” when pulling the plaintiff over (as the plaintiff contends there was no
"emergency"), and that Officer Smith issued the plaintiff the traffic citation without witnesses.
(Doc. No. 1 at pp. 4-5.) These allegations, even if they are true, are simply insufficient to
demonstrate Officer Smith deprived the plaintiff of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of
the United States.
Accordingly, the plaintiff has failed to allege any cognizable claim against any of the

-4-

defendants under §1983, and his damages action is properly dismissed rather than stayed.
The plaintiff’s motion for a temporary injunction is denied. Whether to issue a preliminary
injunction is committed to the sound discretion of the district court and is based on the court’s
consideration of (1) whether the movant has a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2)
whether the movant would suffer irreparable injury; (3) whether issuance of a preliminary
injunction would cause substantial harm to others; and (4) whether the public interest would be
served by issuance of a preliminary injunction. Leary v. Daeschner, 228 F.3d 729, 736 (6th Cir.
2000). As discussed above, this Court will not exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over the
plaintiff’s action and the plaintiff has failed to allege a cognizable claim; therefore, the factors do
not weigh in favor of injunctive relief.
Conclusion
For all of the reasons stated above, the plaintiff’s motion for a temporary injunction is
denied and this action is sua sponte dismissed pursuant to the Younger doctrine and Apple v. Glenn,
183 F.3d 477. Defendants’ motion to dismiss or stay the action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
is denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Dan Aaron Polster 2/11/15
DAN AARON POLSTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-5-