Ziegler v. Unknown Euclid Police Officers et al

Filing 6

Opinion and Order. Plaintiff's Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Related doc # 2 ) is granted. This action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e). Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Related doc # 4 ) and Plaintiff' s Motion to Strike Defendants Motion (Related doc # 5 ) are denied as moot. 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 6/30/2017. (H,CM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

JOSEPH ZIEGLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNKNOWN EUCLID
POLICE OFFICERS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:17 CV 599
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO

OPINION AND ORDER

CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, J.:

Pro se Plaintiff Joseph Ziegler filed this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981,1983, 1985 and
1986 against Unknown Euclid Police Officers, Euclid Municipal Court Judge Deborah LeBarron
and Euclid City Prosecutor Patrick Gallager. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts he was arrested
and prosecuted for an incident that occurred during a protest on February 22, 2017. He seeks
monetary and injunctive relief.
Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (ECF No. 2). That
Application is granted.

I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s Complaint contains very few factual allegations. He indicates he was arrested
by Euclid police officers on February 22, 2017 while engaging in his right to peacefully
assemble. He asserts he was denied equal protection and was the victim of discrimination on the

basis of race, age, or national origin. However, he does not reveal his race, his age or his
national origin, nor does he allege facts suggesting what the Defendants did that he considered
to be discriminatory. He states, without explanation, that the officers used excessive force and
ordered medical staff at the Euclid Hospital to inject him with a substance to render him
unconscious so his blood could be drawn without a warrant.
Criminal charges were brought against him in the Euclid Municipal Court. He does not
specify those charges. He attempted to remove that action to federal court on March 7, 2017,
but the Court remanded the case because it was unremovable. Judge LeBarron proceeded with
his arraignment on March 9, 2017. He states, without explanation, that Judge LeBarron ordered
Prosecutor Patrick Gallager “to act maliciously and corruptly without subject matter
jurisdiction... .” (ECF No. 1 at 5).
Plaintiff asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985 and 1986. He states the
Defendants violated or conspired to violate his rights to life, liberty, due process, freedom from
discrimination and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. He sues the Defendants in their
official and individual capacities.

II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364,
365 (1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the Court is required to
dismiss an in forma pauperis 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. Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990); Sistrunk v. City of
Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996). An action has no arguable basis in law when the
-2-

Defendant is immune from suit or when the Plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest which
clearly does not exist. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. An action has no arguable factual basis when
the allegations are delusional or rise to the level of the irrational or “wholly incredible.” Denton
v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992); Lawler, 898 F.2d at 1199.
A cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it lacks
“plausibility in the complaint.” Bell Atl. 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. 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. In reviewing a Complaint, the Court must construe the
pleading in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff. Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 151
F.3d 559, 561 (6th Cir. 1998).
Here, all of Plaintiff’s claims are stated solely as legal conclusions. He does not provide
facts to support any of his claims. To meet basic pleading requirements, the Complaint must
give the Defendants fair notice of what the Plaintiff’s claims are and the grounds upon which
they rest. Id. at 726; Bassett v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 528 F.3d 426, 437 (6th Cir.
2008). Plaintiff identifies legal claims but does not allege facts to put the Defendants on notice
of the factual grounds upon which those claims rest. This Complaint does not meet basic
-3-

pleading requirements of Federal Civil Procedure Rule 8 to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted.

III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) is
granted and this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e). Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss (ECF No. 4) and Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Motion (ECF No. 5) are
denied as moot. 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.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Christopher A. Boyko
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: June 30, 2017

1

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides:
An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies that it is not
taken in good faith.
-4-