Cruz v. Cuyahoga County Probation Department et al
Memorandum of Opinion and Order: Accordingly, 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 Patricia A. Gaughan on 8/8/17. (LC,S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Luis A. Cruz,
Cuyahoga County Probation Dept., et al., )
CASE NO. 1:17 CV 765
JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
Memorandum of Opinion and Order
Pro se Plaintiff Luis A. Cruz filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the
Cuyahoga County Probation Department, and Cuyahoga County Sheriff Clifford Pinkney. In
the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges his bond was revoked unfairly after he tested positive for drug
use. He seeks monetary damages.
Plaintiff was indicted by the Cuyahoga County Grand Jury on charges of trafficking in
heroin, possession of heroin, possession of cocaine, permitting drug abuse, having weapons
under disability, possession of criminal tools, and endangering children. The Cleveland
Municipal Court set his bond at $ 500,000.00. After bindover, the Cuyahoga County Court of
Common Pleas reduced his bond to $100,000.00, which Plaintiff posted. In May 2016,
Plaintiff’s random drug test yielded a positive result for cocaine, and the judge issued a capias at
the request of the Probation Department. He was taken into custody on May 25, 2016 where he
remained until he pled guilty to trafficking in heroin on May 9, 2017. The Court sentenced him
to 8 years in prison, with credit for time served in pretrial detention.
Plaintiff contests the revocation of his pre-trial bond. He contends a prescription
medication caused the positive result. He states he complied with all other terms of his pre-trial
release and his bond should not have been revoked. He alleges he suffered business losses from
his inability to work, as well as pain and suffering from unlawful confinement. He seeks Five
Million Dollars in damages.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact
when it is premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory or when the factual contentions are
clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. 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. Bell Atl.
Corp., 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).
Plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To establish a prima
facie case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff must assert that a person acting under color of state
law deprived him of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the
United States. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981). In this case, Plaintiff fails to
identify a Constitutional right he believes was violated, and fails to connect that violation to
either of the Defendants.
Plaintiff states his bond was revoked because he failed a drug test, which violated the
conditions of his release. He does not state which Constitutional right he believes was violated
by the revocation of his bond, and none is apparent on the face of the Complaint. To meet basic
notice pleading requirements of Federal Civil Procedure Rule 8, the Complaint must give the
Defendants fair notice of what the Plaintiff’s legal claims are and the grounds upon which they
rest. Bassett v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 528 F.3d 426, 437 (6th Cir. 2008). Because
Plaintiff does not identify any legal claim justifying relief, he failed to meet basic notice
In addition, the Probation Department is not a proper Defendant. It is not sui juris,
meaning, it is not a legal entity capable of suing or being sued. Instead, it is a subunit of
Cuyahoga County. See Jerry v. Lake Cty./Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, No. 1:09 CV 2079, 2010 WL
3069561, at *1 (N.D. Ohio July 31, 2010)(Municipal Court and County Probation Department
are not sui juris). The claims against the Probation Department are therefore construed as
claims against the County.
As a rule, local governments may not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an injury
inflicted solely by employees or agents under a respondeat superior theory of liability. See
Monell v. Department of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691(1978). “Instead, 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.” Id. at 694. A municipality can therefore be held liable
when it unconstitutionally “implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or
decision officially adopted by that body’s officers.” Id. at 690; DePiero v. City of Macedonia,
180 F.3d 770, 786 (6th Cir. 1999). The Complaint contains no suggestion of a custom or policy
of Cuyahoga County that caused his bond to be revoked.
Similarly, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Sheriff Pinkney. Plaintiff cannot
establish the liability of any Defendant absent a clear showing that the Defendant was
personally involved in the activities which form the basis of the alleged unconstitutional
behavior. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976); Mullins v. Hainesworth, No. 95-3186,
1995 WL 559381 (6th Cir. Sept. 20, 1995). Plaintiff’s bond was revoked by the Common Pleas
Court Judge, at the request of his pre-trial supervision officer. The Judge issued a capias and
Sheriff’s Deputies executed that order. Plaintiff does not allege any actions personally
performed by Sheriff Pinkney.
Accordingly, 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/ Patricia A. Gaughan
PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
United States District Court
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?