Morrison v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction et al

Filing 5

Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 12/16/15 dismissing the instant case without prejudice to any valid state law claim plaintiff may have under the facts alleged for the reasons set forth in this order. The Court further certifies that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. (D,MA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

JAMES F. MORRISON,
Plaintiff,
v.
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION
AND CORRECTION, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:15 CV 1419
JUDGE JAMES S. GWIN

OPINION AND ORDER

On July 17, 2015, Plaintiff pro se James F. Morrison, an inmate at the Richland Correctional
Institution (“RCI”), filed this 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 action against Defendants Ohio Department of
Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”), Ohio State Highway Patrol (“OSHP”), and the Richland
County Prosecutor. He filed an “Amended Complaint” on August 7, 2015, adding the following
Defendants: Ross Correctional Institution Inmate James D. Hunt, RCI Correctional Officer Connie
Carpenter, RCI Warden Margaret Bradshaw, ODRC Director Gary Mohr, RCI Institutional
Investigator , OSHP Trooper Bryan L. Butler, and Richland County Prosecutor Bambi Couch Page.1
Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint that he was assaulted by inmate Defendant Hunt on August
5, 2013 in an RCI bathroom, and that this attack was the result of a conspiracy with correction

1

Plaintiff’s pleadings are hereafter referred to together as “the Complaint.”
1

officer Defendant Carpenter. He further alleges the remaining Defendants are responsible for the
fact that no criminal charges have been brought against Hunt or Carpenter for the incident.
A district court is expressly required to dismiss any civil action filed by a prisoner seeking
relief from a governmental officer or 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).
A cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it lacks
“plausibility in the complaint.” Bell At. 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, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (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. Twombly, 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, 556 U.S. at 678 (2009). 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.
Even construing the Complaint liberally in a light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Brand v.
Motley, 526 F.3d 921, 924 (6th Cir. 2008), it does not contain allegations reasonably suggesting he
might have a valid federal claim, as the allegations he sets forth are entirely conclusory. See, e.g.,
Lillard v. Shelby County Bd. of Educ,, 76 F.3d 716 (6th Cir. 1996)(court not required to accept
summary allegations or unwarranted legal conclusions in determining whether complaint states a

2

claim for relief).
Accordingly, this action is dismissed under section 1915A. The dismissal is without
prejudice to any valid state law claim Plaintiff may have under the facts alleged. 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.

Dated: December 16, 2015

s/
James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3