Hart v. Cuyahoga County Sheriff's Department et al
Memorandum Opinion and Order re 1 Complaint filed by Dewayne Hart. The request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, and this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e). 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 2/27/2017. (R,D)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
CUYAHOGA COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
CASE NO. 1:17 CV 188
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
On January 27, 2017, Plaintiff pro se Dewayne Hart, formerly an inmate at the Cuyahoga
County Jail, filed the above captioned action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Cuyahoga
County Sheriff’s Department and Dr. Gatz. His very brief Complaint contains only general
allegations that he was not provided adequate medical treatment when he was confined at the
Plaintiff asserts he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of his Eighth
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364,
365 (1982) (per curiam), the district court is required to dismiss an action under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e) if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or if it lacks an arguable basis
in law or fact.1 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470 (6th
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, Plaintiff fails to state a valid claim for relief
under the Eighth Amendment. Only deliberate indifference to serious medical needs or extreme
deprivations regarding the conditions of confinement will implicate Eighth Amendment
protections. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992). An official acts with deliberate
indifference when “he acts with criminal recklessness,” a state of mind that requires that the
official act with conscious disregard of a substantial risk of serious harm. Farmer v. Brennan,
An in forma pauperis claim may be dismissed sua sponte, without prior notice to the
plaintiff and without service of process on the defendant, if the court explicitly states
that it is invoking section 1915(e) [formerly 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)] and is dismissing
the claim for one of the reasons set forth in the statute. Chase Manhattan Mortg.
Corp. v. Smith, 507 F.3d 910, 915 (6th Cir. 2007); Gibson v. R.G. Smith Co., 915 F.2d
260, 261 (6th Cir. 1990); Harris v. Johnson, 784 F.2d 222, 224 (6th Cir. 1986).
511 U.S. 825. 837 (1994). Mere negligence will not suffice. Id. at 835-36. Consequently,
allegations of medical malpractice, negligent diagnosis, or negligent treatment fail to state an
Eighth Amendment claim. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Plaintiff’s allegations do
not describe conduct indicating a degree of culpability greater than negligence.
Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, and this action is
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e). 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
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?