De La Luz v. Willoughby Hills Police Department

Filing 3

Opinion and Order. Plaintiff's Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Related doc # 2 ) is granted. 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 Christopher A. Boyko on 7/15/2019. (H,CM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

ALFREDO DE LA LUZ,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
WILLOUGHBY HILLS POLICE DEPT., )
)
Defendant.
)

CASE NO. 1:19 CV 910
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO

OPINION AND ORDER

CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, J.:

Pro se Plaintiff Alfredo de la Luz filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the
Willoughby Hills Police Department. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges he was arrested for
trespass and obstruction of official business. He contends he was not told the reason for his
arrest and was not read his Miranda rights. He contends the officers placed him in handcuffs
and drove recklessly on the way to the police station. He asserts claims for use of excessive
force and defamation. He seeks monetary and expungement of his criminal record.
Plaintiff also filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc No. 2). That
Application is granted.
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
“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).
As an initial matter, the Willoughby Hills Police Department is not sui juris, meaning it
is merely an arm of the City, and not its own legal entity capable of bringing its own lawsuit or
being sued. Hale v. Vance, 267 F.Supp.2d 725, 737 (S.D.Ohio 2003). Plaintiff’s claims against
-2-

the police department are liberally construed as asserted against the City of Willoughby Hills.
Plaintiff cannot sue a local government entity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 solely for the
actions of its employees on the theory of respondeat superior. Monell v. New York City Dep’t of
Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 692- 94 (1978). Plaintiff may only hold a local government entity
liable under § 1983 for the entity’s own wrongdoing. Id. A local government entity violates §
1983 where its official policy or custom actually serves to deprive an individual of his or her
constitutional rights. Id. A “municipal policy” includes “a policy statement, ordinance,
regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated.” Powers v. Hamilton County Pub.
Defender Comm’n, 501 F.3d 592, 607 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at 690). A
“custom” for purposes of Monell liability must “be so permanent and well-settled as to
constitute a custom or usage with the force of law.” Monell, 436 U.S. at 691. It must reflect a
course of action deliberately chosen from among various alternatives. City of Oklahoma v.
Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 823 (1985). In short, a “custom” is a legal institution not memorialized by
written law. Feliciano v. City of Cleveland, 988 F.2d 649, 655 (6th Cir. 1993). To state a claim
for relief against a municipality under § 1983, Plaintiff must: (1) identify the municipal policy or
custom, (2) connect the policy to the municipality, and (3) show that his particular injury was
incurred due to execution of that policy. Alkire v. Irving, 330 F.3d 802, 815 (6th Cir. 2003).
The Plaintiff does not identify a custom or policy of the City of Willoughby Hills that caused
him injury. Instead, his allegations center on the actions of individual officers. This will not
support a claim against the City under § 1983.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is
granted this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e). The Court certifies, pursuant to
-3-

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: July 15, 2019

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.
-4-