Kelley v. City of Cleveland et al

Filing 4

Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 11/29/17 dismissing this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for the reasons set forth in this entry. 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. (D,MA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

ABDUL KARIM J. KELLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF CLEVELAND, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:17 CV 1909
JUDGE JAMES S. GWIN
OPINION & ORDER

On September 11, 2017, plaintiff pro se Abdul Karim J. Kelley, an inmate at the Lorain
Correctional Institution, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the City of Cleveland and the
Cuyahoga County Jail Medical Department. Plaintiff’s very brief statement of claim in the
Complaint alleges a psychiatrist at the Cuyahoga County Jail spoke to him in an abusive manner
and prescribed medication that was not appropriate to treat his psychiatric condition. For the
reasons stated below, this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
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).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), 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, 678 (2009). The pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require “detailed factual
allegations,” but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation. Id. A pleading that offers “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked
assertion devoid of further factual enhancement. Id. It must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. The plausibility standard is
not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully. Id. Where a complaint pleads facts that are “merely consistent
with” a defendant's liability, it “stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of
‘entitlement to relief.’ ” Id.
Even liberally construed, the Complaint does not contain allegations reasonably
suggesting plaintiff might have a valid claim against the named defendants. 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). Government entities “cannot be held liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior
theory." Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). Monell requires that to
establish such liability under § 1983, “a plaintiff must allege an unconstitutional action that
“implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted
and promulgated by that body's officers or a constitutional deprivation[ ] visited pursuant to
governmental ‘custom’ even though such a custom has not received formal approval through the
body's official decisionmaking channels.” Shamaeizadeh v. Cunigan, 338 F.3d 535, 556 (6th
Cir.2003)(quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at 690-91). The Complaint does not set forth allegations
indicating defendants have an unconstitutional policy or custom that resulted in a violation of
plaintiff’s rights.
2

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.

Dated: November 29, 2017

s/
James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3