Alexander v. Cuyahoga County Jail et al
Filing
4
Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 7/20/16 dismissing this action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. 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. (D,MA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
DANTEZ D. ALEXANDER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CUYAHOGA COUNTY JAIL, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:16 CV 993
JUDGE JAMES S. GWIN
OPINION & ORDER
On April 25, 2016, plaintiff pro se Dantez D. Alexander, an inmate at the Cuyahoga
County Jail (“the Jail”), filed this civil rights action against the Jail and the Cuyahoga County
Sheriff’s Department. He alleges in the complaint that he was arrested on a warrant
and transported to the Jail without appropriate attire. He also alleges he had to sleep on a cell
floor at the Jail next to a toilet, and that the toilet overflowed. Plaintiff requested but was not
allowed to use an outside toilet, and therefore had to wait for four days to defecate. Finally,
plaintiff alleges the Jail is understaffed, resulting in daily, extended periods during which
inmates are locked down. 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).
Principles requiring generous construction of pro se pleadings are not without limits.
Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1277 (4th Cir. 1985). A complaint must contain
Case No. 1:16 CV 993
Gwin, J.
either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements of some viable legal
theory to satisfy federal notice pleading requirements. See Schied v. Fanny Farmer Candy
Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434, 437 (6th Cir. 1988). District courts are not required to conjure up
questions never squarely presented to them or to construct full blown claims from sentence
fragments. Beaudette, 775 F.2d at 1278. To do so would "require ...[the courts] to explore
exhaustively all potential claims of a pro se plaintiff, ... [and] would...transform the district court
from its legitimate advisory role to the improper role of an advocate seeking out the strongest
arguments and most successful strategies for a party." Id.
Even liberally construed, the complaint does not contain allegations reasonably
suggesting plaintiff might have a valid federal claim against the named Defendants. A county
sheriff's department is not sui juris, and is therefore not capable of being sued. See Barrett v.
Wallace, 107 F.Supp.2d 949, 954 (S.D.Ohio 2000) (a county sheriff's office is not a legal entity
capable of being sued). Further, jails are merely sub-units of the municipalities they serve, and
therefore also cannot be sued. Durant v. Seneca County Jail, No. 3:11 CV 1221, 2011 WL
4732865 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 6, 2011).
Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice 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.
Dated: July 20, 2016
s/ James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-2-
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?