Jane v. Patterson et al
Memorandum of Opinion and Order: This matter is before the Court upon Second Motion of the CMHA Board for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 39 ), Defendants Mayor Jackson and Council Kevin Kelley's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Do c. 40 ), and Defendants Jeffrey K. Patterson, Cuyahoga County Metropolitan Housing Authority, Andres Gonzalez, Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority Police Department, and Kelly Brown's Partial Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 43 ). The motions are GRANTED. The following claims remain: Count Two (FHA) against CMHA and Counts One, Two, Three, Four, and Five against defendant Brown personally. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 4/12/17. (LC,S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Jeffrey K. Patterson, et al.,
CASE NO. 1:16 CV 2195
JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
Memorandum of Opinion and Order
This matter is before the Court upon Second Motion of the CMHA Board for Judgment
on the Pleadings (Doc. 39), Defendants Mayor Jackson and Council Kevin Kelley’s Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 40), and Defendants Jeffrey K. Patterson, Cuyahoga County
Metropolitan Housing Authority, Andres Gonzalez, Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority
Police Department, and Kelly Brown’s Partial Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 43).
This case alleges violations of plaintiff’s rights based upon her transgender status. For the
following reasons, the motions are GRANTED.
Plaintiff Kayla Jane filed this First Amended Complaint against defendants Jeffrey K.
Patterson (personally and as CEO of Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority (CMHA)),
Mayor Frank Jackson (personally and as Mayor of the City of Cleveland), Cleveland City
Council President Kevin Kelley (personally and as Council President), Mayor Gary Norton
(personally and as Mayor of the City of East Cleveland), Ronnie A. Dunn, Ph.D. (personally and
as Chairman of CMHA Board of Commissioners), Stephanie Pope (personally and as CMHA
Commissioner), Robert Davis (personally and as CMHA Commissioner), Barry Withers
(personally and as CMHA Commissioner), CMHA, Andres Gonzalez (personally and as CMHA
Police Chief), CMHA Police Department, CMHA Police Department Supervisors, Kelly Brown
(personally and as building manager of CMHA), Paige Fink, Pamela Reed, and numerous Jane
and John Does. The First Amended Complaint essentially alleges the following.
Plaintiff is a transgender woman who resided as a tenant in a CMHA apartment complex
located in Cleveland. Plaintiff had previously been homeless, but obtained CMHA housing in
February 2015. She resided there until June 2016. Defendant Kelly Brown was the CMHA
building manager of plaintiff’s apartment complex. During the entire length of plaintiff’s
residence in the complex, Brown verbally harassed plaintiff on the basis of her transgender
status. Defendants Fink and Reed, other CMHA residents, also verbally abused plaintiff. In
December 2015, Brown held a hearing to evict plaintiff Plaintiff was represented by a Legal
Aid attorney and CMHA became aware of the abuse and discrimination against plaintiff.
CMHA agreed there was no basis for eviction and promised to transfer the residents hostile to
plaintiff but failed to do so. On June 20, 2016, defendant Fink pretended to befriend plaintiff
and took her to the beach. Upon their return to the apartment complex, plaintiff was attacked and
beaten by Fink, Reed, and other residents who were waiting for plaintiff and had clearly planned
the attack. Plaintiff was hospitalized for three days. A CMHA patrolman stated to plaintiff that
the attack was a hate crime, but subsequent police reports did not characterize it as such and
described plaintiff as the perpetrator and Reed and Fink as victims. While plaintiff was
hospitalized, Brown issued a series of citations to plaintiff for “not tidying up her room.”
Brown put the citations under the locked door of plaintiff’s apartment which caused plaintiff
additional stress upon her return from the hospital. Fink and Reed continued to harass and
menace plaintiff. In July 2016, a second eviction hearing was initiated by Brown. Plaintiff
thereafter lived out of her car. Plaintiff was attacked in September and October 2016. The
second attack was perpetrated by one of plaintiff’s former CMHA assailants. Despite there
being a witness, the City of Cleveland Prosecutor refused to file charges.
Plaintiff filed this First Amended Complaint asserting seven claims. Count One asserts a
substantive due process claim under § 1983. Count Two asserts a Fair Housing Act (FHA)
violation. Count Three asserts a § 1983 claim for publicizing highly personal, non-public
information. Count Four asserts retaliation for the exercise of First Amendment Rights under §
1983. Count Five asserts a violation of Equal Protection under § 1983. Count Six asserts
felonious assault in violation of the Ohio criminal statute and seeks damages under O.R.C. §
2307.60. Count Seven asserts obstruction of justice in violation of the Ohio criminal statute and
seeks damages under O.R.C. § 2307.60. Each claim is asserted against all defendants.
This matter is now before the Court upon Second Motion of the CMHA Board for
Judgment on the Pleadings; Defendants Mayor Jackson and Council Kevin Kelley’s Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings; and Defendants Jeffrey K. Patterson, Cuyahoga County Metropolitan
Housing Authority, Andres Gonzalez, Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority Police
Department, and Kelly Brown’s Partial Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
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
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).
(1) Second Motion of the CMHA Board for Judgment on the Pleadings
Plaintiff sued CMHA Commissioners Dunn, Pope, Davis, and Withers in their individual
and official capacities on federal and state claims. These defendants assert that the Amended
Complaint fails to state a claim against them. For the following reasons, this Court agrees.
Plaintiff does not dispute that § 1983 claims asserted against these defendants in their
official capacities are essentially claims against CMHA, a named defendant. An officialcapacity claim for damages “generally represents only another way of pleading an action against
an entity of which an officer is an agent.” Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-66 (1985)
(quotations omitted). If the government entity “received notice and an opportunity to respond, an
official-capacity suit is, in all respects other than name, to be treated as a suit against the entity.”
Id. (noting that a plaintiff may only recover on a damages judgment in an official-capacity suit
against the government entity, not the official). Thus, if the entity has been named as a
defendant, an official-capacity claim brought against an individual agent of the entity is
“superfluous” and may be dismissed. See Faith Baptist Church v. Waterford Tp., 522 F. Appx.
322, 327 (6th Cir. 2013) (dismissing official-capacity claims against prosecuting attorney because
township was named as a defendant); see also Foster v. Michigan, 573 F. App'x 377, 389–90
(6th Cir. 2014) (“Where the entity is named as a defendant, an official-capacity claim is
redundant.”). As such, the official capacity § 1983 claims against these defendants are
duplicative of the claims asserted against CMHA and fail to state a claim against the individual
Nor does the Amended Complaint state a § 1983 claim against these defendants in their
individual capacities. It is well-established that
A plaintiff bringing an individual capacity claim under § 1983 seeks to impose individual
liability upon a government officer for actions taken under color of state law. Hafer v.
Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25 (1991). To sufficiently plead a § 1983 claim against a Defendant in
his/her individual capacity, a plaintiff must allege Defendant's personal involvement in
the alleged constitutional violation. Gibson v. Matthews, 926 F.2d 532, 535 (6th Cir.
1991) (explaining liability must be based on the actions of that defendant in the situation
that the defendant faced, and not based on any problems caused by the errors of others);
see also Murphy v. Grenier, 406 Fed.Appx. 972, 974 (6th Cir. 2011).
Lovette v. Bowen, 2016 WL 5661837 (W.D.Ky. Sept. 29, 2016) (internal quotation marks
omitted). “To sufficiently plead a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege personal involvement
because § 1983 liability cannot be imposed under a theory of respondeat superior.” Gresham v.
Mohr, 2017 WL 690737 (S.D.Ohio Feb. 3, 2017) (citations omitted). “[A]n individual is only
liable for his or her own misconduct.” Burley v. Gagacki, 834 F.3d 606 (6th Cir. 2016).
As the Amended Complaint fails to set forth facts showing the personal involvement of
the CMHA Commissioners, § 1983 claims against them in their individual capacities fail.
Count Two alleges a Fair Housing Act violation claim and asserts that all defendants
discriminated against plaintiff based on her transgender status and the Commissioners, with
constructive knowledge of the other defendants’ misconduct, enabled and encouraged it.
Elsewhere in the Amended Complaint, plaintiff references that under the Fair Housing Act, a
principal may not delegate to an agent its duty to not discriminate and defendants may be liable
under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Indeed, in assessing liability under the Fair Housing
Act, “The discriminatory conduct of an apartment manager or rental agent, is as a general rule,
attributable to the owner and property manager of the apartment complex, both under the
doctrine of respondeat superior and because the duty to obey the law is non-delegable.” Marr v.
Rife, 503 F.2d 735 (6th Cir. 1974) (citations omitted). The Supreme Court has recognized,
however, that although the Fair Housing Act provides for vicarious liability, “[a]bsent special
circumstances, it is the corporation, not its owner or officer, who is the principal or employer
subject to vicarious liability for the torts of its employees or agents.” Meyer v. Holley, 537 U.S.
280 (2003). CMHA is the “body corporate and politic.” Ohio Revised Code § 3735.31. The
Board members are officers of CMHA. As such, they are not the principal. As defendants point
out, the Board of Commissioners is not the principal of any CMHA employee, but Board
members are merely agents, themselves, of CMHA which is the principal. Thus, the Fair
Housing Act’s “nondelegable duty” not to discriminate imposed on a principal does not extend
to an officer. Marr, supra. For these reasons, Count Two fails to state a claim against these
Nor do plaintiff’s state law counts state a claim against the Commissioners because
allegations for civil recovery based on a criminal act “are not viable in the absence of a criminal
conviction.” A.A. v. Ostego Local Schools Bd. Of Education, 2016 WL 7387261 (N.D.Ohio
December 21, 2016) (citing Ohio Rev. Code § 2307.60 and Ortiz v. Kazmier, 2015 WL 1400549
(N.D. Ohio 2015), aff'd 811 F.3d 848 (6th Cir. 2016)). There is no allegation that anyone was
convicted of felonious assault or obstruction of justice. Thus, Counts Six and Seven fail to state a
claim against any defendant.
Additionally, defendants argue that, as agents of CMHA, they are entitled to the same
political subdivision immunity set forth in Ohio Revised Code § 2744.02 that CMHA is entitled
to. Again, the Court agrees. Determining whether a political subdivision is immune from liability
involves a three-tiered analysis. Lambert v. Clancy, 125 Ohio St. 3d 231, 233 (2010). First, with
certain exceptions, § 2744.02 provides a general grant of immunity to political subdivisions for
“damages in a civil action for injury [or] death...allegedly caused by an act or omission of the
political subdivision or an employee of the political subdivision in connection with a
governmental or proprietary function.” Ohio Rev. Code § 2744.02(A). The second step of the
analysis focuses on whether any of the five exceptions to political subdivision immunity listed in
§ 2744.02(B) apply. Lambert, 125 Ohio St. 3d at 233. The exceptions to immunity are for:
(1) an employee’s negligent operation of a motor vehicle;
(2) an employee’s negligent performance of acts with respect to proprietary
(3) the negligent failure to keep public roads in repair and other negligent failure
to remove obstructions from public roads;
(4) an employee’s negligence that occurs within or on the grounds of, and is due
to physical defects within or on the grounds of, buildings that are used in
connection with the performance of a governmental function, “but not including
jails, places of juvenile detention, workhouses, or any other detention facility”;
(5) a catchall provision for liability expressly imposed by other statutes.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2744.02(B). If one of the exceptions to immunity applies, then the analysis
proceeds to the third step. At this step, the court determines whether any of the defenses set out
in Ohio Revised Code § 2744.03 apply to shield the political subdivision from liability. Lambert,
125 Ohio St. 3d at 233. If none of the exceptions to immunity in § 2744.02(B) applies, then the
court does not address defenses. Rankin v. Cuyahoga Cty Dept. of Children & Family Servs., 118
Ohio St. 3d 392, 397 (2008) (“We need not go further in our immunity analysis, as R.C.
2744.02(A) prohibits the appellees’ claim against the department, and there is no exception in
R.C. 2744.02(B) that permits the claim to be resurrected.”).
In Lambert, the Ohio Supreme Court considered whether the immunity analysis for
political subdivisions applies to office holders who are sued in their official capacity or whether
the employee-immunity provisions of Ohio Rev. Code § 2744.03 apply instead. Id. at 236.
Because suing an officeholder in his or her official capacity is “the equivalent of suing the
political subdivision,” the court held that the officeholder is entitled to the grant of immunity for
political subdivisions. Id. Courts have applied Lambert to a variety of officials and employees.
See, e.g., Snyder v. United States, 990 F. Supp. 2d 818, 846 (S.D. Ohio 2014) (police officer);
Harris v. Columbus, 2016 Ohio 1036, 2016 WL 1051129, at *7 (Ohio Ct. App. March 15, 2016)
(sheriff); Newton v. City of Cleveland Law Dept., 2015 Ohio 1460, 2015 WL 1737935, at *4
(Ohio Ct. App. April 16, 2015) (police detectives, county medical examiner, county office
No exception to immunity applies. The Commissioners are immune from the state law
claims in their official capacity. Additionally, as before, the claims are duplicative to those
Dismissal is also warranted as to the state law claims in the Commissioners’ personal
capacities. For the same reasons discussed above regarding personal liability for § 1983 claims,
there are no plausible facts showing the Commissioners were personally involved with the
alleged actions taken against plaintiff. Thus, no exception for employee immunity can apply.
O.R.C. § 2744.03(A)(6).
For these reasons, Second Motion of the CMHA Board for Judgment on the Pleadings is
(2) Defendants Mayor Jackson and Councilman Kevin Kelley’s Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings
Plaintiff sued City of Cleveland Mayor Jackson and Cleveland City Council President
Kelley in their individual and official capacities on federal and state claims. These defendants
assert that the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim against them. For the following reasons,
this Court agrees.
As with the defendants above, the Amended Complaint does not state a § 1983 claim
against Mayor Jackson and Council President Kelley in their personal capacities. There are no
facts showing these defendants’ personal involvement with the alleged wrongful actions taken
against plaintiff. Moreover, the Amended Complaint seems to base the liability of Jackson and
Kelley on their statutory duty to appoint members of the CMHA Board. Plaintiff then alleges
that as appointing authority, Jackson and Kelley must supervise their appointees. But, the Ohio
statute does not give the mayor and council president authority over the Board members’ actions.
See O.R.C. §§ 3735.27, 3735.31. In particular, there is no supervisory power. Even if they did
have supervisory authority over the Board (or the building manager), supervisors are not liable
under § 1983 for the unconstitutional conduct of subordinates unless the supervisor “at least
implicitly authorized, approved, or knowingly acquiesced in” the subordinate's unconstitutional
conduct. McQueen v. Beecher Cmty. Sch., 433 F.3d 460, 470 (6th Cir. 2006). There is no
plausible allegation that Mayor Jackson or Council President Kelley authorized, approved, or
acquiesced in the alleged abuse by Brown.
As to the official capacity suit against them, as discussed above, this equates to a suit
against the City.1 However, it is well-established that a municipality may only be held liable
under § 1983 when an official policy or custom causes an employee to violate another's
constitutional rights. See Smith v. Patterson, 430 Fed.Appx. 438 (6th Cir. 2011) (citing Monell v.
Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978)). The Amended Complaint alleges that “there exists a
Cleveland City custom or policy of deliberate indifference to criminal conduct by their agents.”
(Am.Compl. ¶ 54) Plaintiff alleges that the City’s “policy and custom resulted in a license to
attack [plaintiff], resulting in the two additional attacks against” plaintiff after she moved out of
CMHA housing. (Id. ¶ 126) In her brief, plaintiff asserts that she has alleged “the establishment
of a widespread custom amounting to a city policy of ‘looking the other way’ when the rights of
transgender individuals and others are violated by public employees.” (Doc. 45 at 3) And she
Plaintiff did not name the City as a defendant. But, the claims against the mayor
and council president in their official capacity “are an alternative way of pleading
an action against the entity for which the officers are employed.” Burnside v.
Walters, 2014 WL 4809937 (W.D.Tenn. Sept. 26, 2014) (citations omitted).
has alleged that Jackson and Kelley “through a longstanding refusal to act to correct
discrimination, such as, the abuse of transgender individuals, have created a shield of immunity
which permitted and encouraged misconduct by CMHA employees.” (Id. at 4)
“For Plaintiff to present a viable Monell claim, he must identify a specific policy or
custom that was the moving force behind Plaintiff's alleged constitutional violation.” Glowka v.
Bemis, 2015 WL 8647702 (S.D.Ohio February 14, 2015) (citing Sexton v. Kenton County Det.
Ctr., 702 F.Supp.2d 784, 790 (E.D. Ky. 2010) (citing Doe v. Claiborne County, 103 F.3d 495,
508 (6th Cir. 1996)). An allegation, stated in a conclusory manner, that a governmental entity
had a policy which caused an injury is insufficient where a specific policy or custom is not
identified. Weaver v. Henderson County, 2017 WL 90386 (W.D.Tenn. January 10, 2017).
Plaintiff does not specifically set forth a Monell allegation against the City. A conclusory
allegation that the City had a policy of deliberate indifference to the criminal conduct by its
agents is insufficient to state a Monell claim. Furthermore, the alleged perpetrators are CMHA
agents and residents, not City of Cleveland employees.
Therefore, the official capacity § 1983 claims must be dismissed.
As to the Fair Housing Act claim alleged against these defendants, the non-delegable
duty not to discriminate applies only to CMHA, as discussed above. Thus, Count Two fails to
state a claim.
Having found no personal involvement of these defendants with the alleged actions taken
against plaintiff, dismissal is also warranted on the state law claims.2
To the extent that any of plaintiff’s federal or state claims are based on the
allegation that the City of Cleveland Prosecutor failed to file charges in
connection with the October 4, 2016 attack on plaintiff, such an allegation fails to
For these reasons, Defendants Mayor Jackson and Councilman Kevin Kelley’s Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings is granted.
(3) Defendants Jeffrey K. Patterson, Cuyahoga County Metropolitan Housing
Authority, Andres Gonzalez, Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority Police
Department, and Kelly Brown’s Partial Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Defendants Jeffrey K. Patterson, Cuyahoga County Metropolitan Housing Authority,
Andres Gonzalez, Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority Police Department, and Kelly
Brown3 move for judgment on the pleadings as to all claims except Count Two (FHA claim)
against CMHA and Counts One, Two, Three, Four, and Five against Brown personally. For the
following reasons, this Court agrees with defendants.
Initially, plaintiff agrees that the CMHA Police Department is non sui juris and,
therefore, should be dismissed because it is not capable of suing or being sued.
CMHA seeks dismissal of Counts One, Three, Four, and Five, the § 1983 claims, because
the Amended Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to state a valid Monell claim. It is wellestablished that CMHA, a government entity, cannot be held vicariously liable under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 based upon a respondeat superior theory of liability. Tidaback v. City of
Georgetown, 2017 WL 1217165 (E.D.Ky. March 31, 2017)) (citing Monell and Matthews v.
Jones, 35 F.3d 1046, 1049 (6th Cir.1994)). “Plaintiff must demonstrate a direct causal
state a claim. White v. City of Toledo, 217 F.Supp.2d 838 (N.D.Ohio 2002)
(internal citations and quotations omitted) (“In any event, the law is also clear that
there is no constitutional, statutory, or common law right that a private citizen has
to require a public official to investigate or prosecute a crime.)
The motion also applies to improperly named “CMHA Police Department
Supervisors” and Jane and John Doe CMHA Officials.
connection between a policy or a custom of the Government and the Plaintiffs' alleged injuries.”
Id. (citing Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808 (1985); Johnson v. Hardin Cnty., Kentucky,
908 F.2d 1280, 1285 (6th Cir.1990)). Thus, to state a claim against a governmental entity, “a
plaintiff must adequately plead (1) that a violation of a federal right took place, (2) that the
defendants acted under color of state law, and (3) that a municipality's policy or custom caused
that violation to happen.” Bright v. Gallia County, Ohio, 753 F.3d 639 (6th Cir. 2014)(citing
Lambert v. Hartman, 517 F.3d 433 (6th Cir.2008)). Furthermore, as stated above, plaintiff cannot
generally reference a “policy and custom” or state such in a conclusory manner. Rather,
plaintiff must identify a particular custom or practice and tie it to a particular defendant. See also
Sheppard v. Sheldon, 2011 WL 3608223 (N.D. Ohio Aug.15, 2011).
The Amended Complaint does not identify any particular policy or custom adopted by
CMHA that was the moving force behind the alleged violations. In fact, plaintiff vaguely
references that the City had a custom and policy of deliberate indifference, but does not allege as
much against CMHA. In her brief, plaintiff states that there exists an issue of fact as to “whether
or not Defendants had a custom or policy of condoning a ‘code of silence,’ which sought to
inhibit the reporting of malfeasance, as Plaintiff has alleged that such custom resulted in
harassment by personnel of CMHA and felonious assault and other misconduct.” (Doc. 50 at 6)
Even if she had alleged this, such a vague reference does not amount to a custom or policy.
Furthermore, plaintiff’s use of the word “Defendants” shows that she is not attaching a specific
policy to CMHA- the only defendant who would be responsible for a policy. In her brief,
plaintiff additionally points to paragraph 40 of her Amended Complaint wherein she alleges,
At the very least, Defendants were Policy-making officials and supervisors and in the
event that they actually wished to prevent discrimination against transgender individuals,
they have obviously adopted policies or customs which are grossly inadequate for dealing
with discrimination against transgender individuals.
Again, there is no clear policy alleged. Moreover, plaintiff fails to differentiate between various
named defendants whereas it is only the governmental entity that may be liable for the policy.
Garner v. City of Memphis, 576 Fed. Appx. 460 (6th Cir. 2014).
While a municipality may “ratify its employees' acts—thereby subjecting itself to § 1983
liability—by failing meaningfully to investigate those acts,” Dresher v. Lucas County, 2016 WL
5338042 (N.D. Ohio September 23, 2016) (quoting Otero v. Wood, 316 F. Supp. 2d 612 (S.D.
Ohio 2004) and Wright v. City of Canton, 138 F. Supp. 2d 955 (N.D. Ohio 2001)), plaintiff must
still allege a governmental policy. Askew v. City of Memphis, 2016 WL 3748609 (W.D.Tenn.
July8, 2016) (citations omitted) ( “It is when execution of a government's policy or custom,
whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent
official policy, inflicts the injury that the government as an entity is responsible under § 1983.
Thus, to be liable under a ratification theory, the municipality's failure to investigate must be
indicative of an official policy.”)
Because she fails to identify an unconstitutional policy or custom and tie it to CMHA,
Counts One, Three, Four, and Five alleged against CMHA under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are
dismissed. Likewise, the official capacity claims against defendants Gonzalez, Patterson, and
Brown fail to state a claim.
With regard to the § 1983 personal capacity claims against CMHA Police Chief Gonzalez
and CMHA CEO Patterson, the Court agrees that the Amended Complaint fails to allege any
facts connecting them personally to the alleged unlawful conduct. In her brief, plaintiff confuses
individual capacity with governmental liability. She asserts, “[T]hese defendants in their
individual capacities established policies causing Kelly Brown to be immune from accountability
for her misconduct.” (Doc. 50 at 3) And, Patterson, Brown, and Gonzalez “in their individual
capacities ... set and/or executed the above referenced offending policy which caused the
misconduct by Brown and which led to the attack upon Plaintiff.” (Id. at 9) As stated above, to
hold these defendants personally liable, plaintiff must allege their personal involvement in the
alleged constitutional violation. Plaintiff does not do so.
Concerning defendants Gonzalez’s and Patterson’s personal liability under the FHA,
these claims are dismissed for the reasons discussed above.
Finally, the state law claims are dismissed for the same reasons discussed above as to the
For these reasons, Defendants Jeffrey K. Patterson, Cuyahoga County Metropolitan
Housing Authority, Andres Gonzalez, Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority Police
Department, and Kelly Brown’s Partial Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is granted.
For the foregoing reasons, Second Motion of the CMHA Board for Judgment on the
Pleadings; Defendants Mayor Jackson and Council Kevin Kelley’s Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings; and Defendants Jeffrey K. Patterson, Cuyahoga County Metropolitan Housing
Authority, Andres Gonzalez, Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority Police Department, and
Kelly Brown’s Partial Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings are granted. The following claims
remain: Count Two (FHA) against CMHA and Counts One, Two, Three, Four, and Five against
defendant Brown personally.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Patricia A. Gaughan
PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
United States District Judge
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?