Thomas v. Mohr et al

Filing 18

Memorandum of Opinion and Order: Defendant Mike Davis's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is unopposed and granted. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 4/25/16. (LC,S) re 15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

Prentiss A. Thomas,
Plaintiff,
Vs.
Gary C. Mohr, et al,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:15 CV 812
JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN

Memorandum of Opinion and Order

Introduction
This matter is before the Court upon defendant Mike Davis’s Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings (Doc. 15). For the following reasons, the motion is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED.
Facts
Pro se plaintiff Prentiss A. Thomas, a state prisoner formerly incarcerated in the
Mansfield Correctional Institution (“ManCI”), filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 against Gary C. Mohr, the Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction (ODRC), Michael Davis, ODRC’s Religious Services Administrator, Alan Lazaroff,
the Warden at ManCI, and Lyneal Wainwright, the Deputy Warden of Special Services. By

1

prior Memorandum of Opinion and Order, this Court dismissed all defendants except Davis.
The Complaint alleges the following. The plaintiff was “conveyed” to the custody of the
ODRC in August 2014, and at that time indicated that his faith required him to keep a kosher
diet. He was referred to Lorain Correctional Institution Chaplain Pollard, who interviewed the
plaintiff. The plaintiff submitted a form requesting inclusion in the Kosher Diet Program and
accommodations for access to Jewish Religious Services. His form was forwarded to Michael
Davis for “approval/disapproval.”
The plaintiff was transferred to ManCI on September 18, 2014, and identified himself as
a practitioner of Judaism and indicated a kosher diet as a tenet of his faith. He was told to send a
“kite” to Chaplain Butts. He did so, but received no response. After he filed an informal
complaint and a grievance, he was visited by Chaplain Maas, who allegedly told him “there’s no
Jewish services” and that the State isn’t buying “religious books, etc.” Chaplain Maas also
allegedly told the plaintiff, “it’s a money thing” and that he would have to sue the State if he
wanted religious meals. Three weeks after the plaintiff filed another informal complaint,
Chaplain Maas returned “with 3 questions on a piece of paper.” The plaintiff answered the
questions, and Chaplain Maas submitted his answers to Chaplain Butts.
On January 21, 2015, Michael Davis “denied [his] participation in the Kosher Diet
Program citing ‘lack of demonstrated sincerity.’” The plaintiff contends his religious beliefs are
sincere and alleges violations of his constitutional rights under the First Amendment. He seeks
injunctive relief, punitive damages, and reimbursement for his expenses.
This matter is now before the Court upon defendant Mike Davis’s Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings. Plaintiff did not oppose the motion.

2

Standard of Review
A “motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) is generally reviewed under
the same standard as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.”Mellentine v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co., 2013 WL
560515 (6th Cir. February 14, 2013) (citing EEOC v. J.H. Routh Packing Co., 246 F.3d 850, 851
(6th Cir.2001)):
The court must construe the complaint in a light most favorable to the plaintiff and accept
all factual allegations as true. The factual allegations must raise a right to relief above the
speculative level. In other words, the Rule 12(b)(6) standard requires that a plaintiff
provide enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.
While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be
supported by factual allegations. Bare allegations without a factual context do not create
a plausible claim. A complaint must contain direct or inferential allegations respecting all
the material elements under some viable legal theory. The bare assertion of legal
conclusions is not enough to constitute a claim for relief.
(Id.) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
Discussion
Plaintiff’s remaining claim is under the First Amendment against defendant Davis, the
decision maker who denied plaintiff’s request for religious accommodation. For the following
reasons, this Court agrees with defendant that dismissal of the Complaint is warranted.
Plaintiff is no longer in the custody and control of ODRC as he has been released from
prison. www.drc.ohio.gov/offendersearch. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges primarily injunctive
relief in the form of access to religious services, access to holy books and relics, and
participation in kosher meals at ManCI. (Doc. 1 at 5) Where a prisoner who seeks injunctive
relief with respect to prison conditions is no longer confined and has been released from prison,
his action should be dismissed as moot. See Abdur-Rahman v. Michigan Dep't of Corr., 65 F.3d
489, 491 (6th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted) (Prisoner’s transfer rendered his request for
3

injunctive relief moot.) Therefore, dismissal is warranted as to plaintiff’s request for injunctive
relief.
Plaintiff also seeks reimbursement from ODRC for copies, filing fees, and court costs as
well as punitive damages in the amount of $500.00. The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
is also granted as to these requests. Given that plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief have been
dismissed, he cannot be awarded punitive damages or reimbursement of costs as to them.
Additionally, ODRC is not a defendant and to the extent Davis has been sued in his official
capacity, the Eleventh Amendment bars such suits for money damages. Grinter v. Knight, 532
F.3d 567 (6th Cir. 2008).
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, defendant Mike Davis’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
is unopposed and granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 4/25/16

/s/ Patricia A. Gaughan
PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
United States District Judge

4