Allshouse v. Walsh et al

Filing 4

Memorandum of Opinion and Order. This action is dismissed under section 1915A. 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 Christopher A. Boyko on 2/3/2016. (H,CM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
CLAYTON E. ALLSHOUSE,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:16 CV 41
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

On January 8, 2016, Plaintiff pro se Clayton E. Allshouse, an inmate at the Richland
Correctional Institution, filed this civil rights action against the following Defendants: Summit
County Prosecutor Sherri Bevan Walsh, Judge Thomas Parker, Mike Bowlen, Ohio Department
of Rehabilitation and Correction Director Gary Mohr, Ohio Governor John Kasich, and Ohio
Attorney General Mike DeWine. Plaintiff does not set forth intelligible allegations in the
Complaint, but asserts in very general terms that Defendants have conspired to deprive him of
various constitutional rights. Plaintiff also appears to challenge the validity of his criminal
convictions and resulting incarceration. For the reasons stated below, this action is dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
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).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), 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, 678 (2009). The pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require “detailed factual
allegations,” but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation. Id. A pleading that offers “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked
assertion devoid of further factual enhancement. Id. It must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. The plausibility standard is
not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully. Id. Where a complaint pleads facts that are “merely consistent
with” a defendant's liability, it “stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of
‘entitlement to relief.’ ” Id.
Even liberally construed, the Complaint does not contain factual allegations suggesting
Plaintiff might have a valid claim. See, 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 claim for relief). Further, to the extent he seeks to
challenge “the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, ... his sole federal remedy is a
writ of habeas corpus." Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 501 (1973).
Accordingly, this action is dismissed under section 1915A. 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/ Christopher A. Boyko
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: February 3, 2016

-2-