Harris v. Ivey et al
Memorandum Opinion and Order For the reasons stated in the Order, 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. Signed by Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 6/29/2017. (K,K)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WILLIE L. HARRIS,
ERIC IVEY, WARDEN, et al.,
CASE NO. 1:17 CV 1225
JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
On June 12, 2017, plaintiff pro se Willie L. Harris, an inmate at the Cuyahoga County
Jail, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the jail’s warden, Eric Ivey, and the Cuyahoga
County Sheriff’s Office. The brief complaint, which is largely illegible, alleges plaintiff bit into
the tooth of a comb that was in his food, causing his mouth to bleed. Plaintiff also alleges the air
quality at the jail is of poor quality, and that the shower area has mold.
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.
While the Eighth Amendment prohibits conduct by prison officials that involves the
“unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,” Ivey v. Wilson, 832 F.2d 950, 954 (6th Cir.1987)
(per curiam) (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 346 (1981)), it does not mandate that
prisoners be free from discomfort or inconvenience during their incarceration. Further,
negligence cannot form the basis for a section 1983 action. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327
Even liberally construed, the complaint simply does not contain allegations reasonably
suggesting plaintiff might have a valid Eighth Amendment claim. See, Lillard v. Shelby County
Bd. of Educ,, 76 F.3d 716 (6th Cir. 1996)(court not required to accept summary allegations or
unwarranted legal conclusions in determining whether complaint states a claim for relief).
Accordingly, 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.
DAN AARON POLSTER
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?