Ramos et al v. Lorain County Children Services et al
Filing
5
Opinion and Order. Plaintiff's Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Related doc # 2 ) is granted. 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 8/13/2018. (H,CM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
MARCUS RAMOS,
Plaintiff,
v.
LORAIN COUNTY
CHILDREN SERVICES, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:18 CV 1018
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
OPINION AND ORDER
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, J.:
Pro se Plaintiff Marcus Ramos filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on behalf of
himself and Lametra Phillips, against Lorain County and the State of Ohio. In the Complaint,
Plaintiff alleges his children were removed from their home after Plaintiff committed domestic
violence against Phillips. He contests this decision and seeks $ 700,000.00 in damages.
I. BACKGROUND
Although his Complaint is 142 pages long, it is composed almost entirely of excerpts of
statutes, newspaper and magazine articles, cases, treatises and the complete Ohio Juvenile
Rules. It contains very few factual allegations.
Plaintiff alleges an incident occurred in Youngstown, Ohio on March 31, 2017, which
resulted in charges being brought against him for domestic violence against the mother of his
children, Lametra Phillips. The charges were dismissed on April 3, 2017. That same day,
Phillips relinquished the children to Plaintiff and went to stay with her mother. Plaintiff
contends the situation calmed down until the Lorain County Children Services began to pursue
him for a matter pending in Lorain County. Plaintiff attempted to obtain civil protection orders
against two case workers and mistakenly believed that serving his Motion for a Protection Order
on the Defendants automatically triggered the remedy he sought, unless and until the Judge
denied it. Mahoning County Children Services and law enforcement personnel became involved
and served a warrant on Plaintiff to take the children. They were placed in foster care. Plaintiff
states that Lorain County Children Services “is subject to the bounds of the 4th and 14th
amendment[s] of the US constitution... .” (ECF No. 1 at 3). He further contends they violated
“parents civil and human rights.” He seeks monetary damages.
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
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
-2-
“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).
The Court takes notice that this is the third case Plaintiff filed against the Lorain County
Children Services Agency pertaining to this incident. See Ramos v. Lorain County Children
Services, No. 1:17 CV 2405 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 29, 2018)(Gwin, J.); Ramos v. Lorain County
Children Services, No. 1:17 CV 2589 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 9, 2018)(Nugent, J.). Both of the prior
cases were dismissed on the merits.
The doctrine of res judicata dictates that a final judgment on the merits of a claim
precludes a party from bringing a subsequent lawsuit on the same claim or from raising a new
defense to defeat the prior judgment. Gargallo v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.,
918 F.2d 658, 660 (6th Cir. 1990). It bars relitigation of every issue actually brought before the
Court and every issue or defense that should have been raised in the previous action. Id. The
purpose of this doctrine is to promote the finality of judgments and thereby increase certainty,
-3-
discourage multiple litigation and conserve judicial resources. Westwood Chemical Co. v.
Kulick, 656 F.2d 1224, 1229 (6th Cir. 1981). A subsequent action will be subject to a res
judicata bar only if there is an identity of the facts creating the right of action and of the
evidence necessary to sustain each action. Both of these requirements are met in this case.
Plaintiff is therefore precluded from litigating this matter for a third time.
Up to this point, the Courts in this District have been tolerant of Plaintiff’s pro se filings;
however, there comes a point when Courts can no longer allow Plaintiff to misuse the judicial
system at tax payer expense. The filing of frivolous lawsuits and motions strains an already
burdened federal judiciary. In re Sindram, 498 U.S. 177, 179-80 (1991); In re McDonald, 489
U.S. 180, 184 (1989). For this reason, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
has approved enjoining vexatious and harassing litigants. Filipas v. Lemons, 835 F.2d 1145 (6th
Cir. 1987); Wrenn v. Vanderbilt Univ. Hosp., Nos. 94-5453, 94-5593, 1995 WL 111480 (6th
Cir. Mar. 15, 1995)(authorizing a court to enjoin harassing litigation under its inherent authority
and the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (citations omitted)). After a careful review of
Plaintiff’s repetitive filings, the Court determines it is necessary to impose some restrictions on
Plaintiff’s ability to continue on in this manner.
For each of the cases Plaintiff filed against Lorain County Children Services, he sought
and was granted permission to proceed In Forma Pauperis. Proceeding In Forma Pauperis is a
privilege, and not a right. Wilson v. Yaklich, 148 F.3d 596, 603 (6th Cir. 1998); Weaver v.
Toombs, 948 F.2d 1004, 1008 (6th Cir. 1991); Marshall v. Beshear, No. 3:10CV-663-R, 2010
WL 5092713, at *3 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 7, 2010). Federal courts may revoke or deny the privilege
of proceeding as a pauper when a litigant abuses the privilege by repeatedly filing frivolous,
-4-
harassing, or duplicative lawsuits. See In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184-85 (1989) (per
curiam); Maxberry v. S.E.C., 879 F.2d 222, 224 (6th Cir.1989) (per curiam). Plaintiff is
cautioned that if he files another lawsuit against the Lorain County Children Services or its
employees pertaining to this incident, the Court will deny him permission to proceed In Forma
Pauperis and require payment of the entire filing fee.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) 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.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Christopher A. Boyko
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: August 13, 2018
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.
-5-
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?