Ferguson v. State of Ohio et al
Filing
2
Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 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. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 6/27/2016. (D,M)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JERMELL FERGUSON,
Plaintiff
v.
STATE OF OHIO, et al.,
Defendants
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:16 CV 1336
JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER
On June 2, 2016, plaintiff pro se Jermell Ferguson, an inmate at the Cuyahoga County
Jail, filed this civil rights action against the State of Ohio, the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, and
the City of Cleveland. While the complaint is unclear, plaintiff appears to allege he was given
permission to reside at a property owned by someone he knew, but is now in jail because that
person told police plaintiff did not belong on the property. 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
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.
It is evident plaintiff seeks to challenge his incarceration. The Supreme Court has held
that, when a prisoner challenges "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).
Further, absent allegations that criminal proceedings terminated in plaintiff's favor or that a
conviction stemming from the asserted violation of his rights was reversed, expunged by
executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal, or called into question by a federal court's
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, he may not recover damages for his claim. Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994).
Based on the foregoing, 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/SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
June 27, 2016
-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?