Woodall v. Budish et al

Filing 3

Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court further 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 Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 7/19/2019. (R,Sh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

RONNIE WOODALL, Jr., Pro Se,
Plaintiff
v.
ARMOND BUDISH, et al.,

Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1: 19 CV 858

JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

Background
Pro Se Plaintiff Ronnie Woodall, Jr., a detainee in the Cuyahoga County Jail, has filed an in
forma pauperis civil rights Complaint in this matter seeking damages and other relief against
multiple Cuyahoga County officials and employees, including Armond Budish, Ken Mills, Eric Ivey,
Emily McNeeley, Douglas Dykes, and Clifford Pickney. (Doc. No. 1.) In his Complaint, Plaintiff
objects to numerous alleged conditions in the Jail, contending they subject him to cruel and unusual
punishment. He complains he is not being provided adequate medical care and that numerous other
inhumane conditions generally exist in the Jail, including unsanitary food trays, black mold, and
asbestos. In addition, he complains there is no law library and that inmates have inadequate access
to large muscle recreation, lawyers, and family due to “red zoning.” (Id. at 3-4.)
Standard of Review
Although federal courts are obligated to construe pro se complaints liberally, see Williams
v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir. 2011), such principles are not without limits. See Young Bok
Song v. Gipson, 423 F. App’x 506, 510 (6th Cir. 2011). Plaintiffs proceeding pro se must still meet

basic pleading requirements, and courts are not required to “conjure allegations on [their] behalf.”
Erwin v. Edwards, 22 F. App’x 579, 580 (6th Cir. 2001).
The Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 103–134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996), requires a
district court to dismiss before service any prisoner action seeking redress from “a governmental
entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity” if the complaint is frivolous or malicious,
fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant
immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. To survive a dismissal for failure to state a claim
under § 1915A, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.” Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010) (holding
that the dismissal standard articulated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) governs dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A).
Discussion
Upon review, the court finds the Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed.
The Plaintiff does not set forth allegations specifically connecting any defendant to the
unconstitutional conditions or misconduct he alleges, and it is well established that supervisory
officials cannot be liable for constitutional violations of subordinates under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 solely
on the basis of respondeat superior. A plaintiff cannot establish the individual liability of any
defendant for constitutional violations absent allegations showing that each defendant was personally
involved in the conduct which forms the basis of his claims. “Because vicarious liability is
inapplicable to . . . § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant,
through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676.
Accordingly, where, as here, individuals are merely named as defendants in a civil rights action
2

without supporting allegations of specific conduct in the body of the complaint, the complaint is
subject to dismissal even under the liberal construction afforded to pro se plaintiffs. See Gilmore
v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 92 F. App'x 188, 190 (6th Cir. 2004) (“Merely listing names in the caption
of the complaint and alleging constitutional violations in the body of the complaint is not enough to
sustain recovery under §1983"); Frazier v. Michigan, 41 F. App'x 762, 764 (6th Cir. 2002)
(affirming dismissal of complaint that did not allege with any degree of specificity which of the
named defendants were personally involved in or responsible for each alleged violation of federal
rights).
Further, Plaintiff has not plead facts sufficient to raise a claim against Cuyahoga County
under Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 3 (1978) for unconstitutional acts resulting in his
injury as a result of an unconstitutional policy or custom.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The
court further 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/ SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
July 18, 2019

3