Doremus v. Zaborowski et al

Filing 3

Memorandum Opinion and Order granting 2 Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing case. This action is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). This Court certifies that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Judge Jack Zouhary on 2/26/2018. (D,L)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Stanley B. Doremus,

Case No. 3:17 CV 1856
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

-vsJUDGE JACK ZOUHARY
Shannon Zaborowski, et. al.,
Defendants.
Plaintiff pro se Stanley Doremus filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against his neighbor
Shannon Zaborowski, the Toledo Police Department, the Lucas County Sheriff, the Toledo Municipal
Court, and the Toledo Municipal Court “prosecutors and employees” (Doc. 1 at 1). He also raises
claims and seeks damages against Eric Schwabel and various staff at St. Vincent’s Hospital, though
these individuals are not identified as Defendants in the case caption (see id. at 2–3). He also moves
to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2); that Motion is granted.
BACKGROUND
In May 2017, Doremus alleges officers were investigating a crime near his home when
Zaborowski approached them and reported something she overheard involving Doremus. The officers
then came to his home, located across the street from the site of the investigation. Doremus states he
asked them to leave seven times. He does not provide any other information concerning this incident.
Doremus next alleges he was assaulted by Schwabel in June 2017. He contends a Toledo police
officer witnessed the assault but did not arrest the perpetrator. Doremus was treated for his injuries at
St. Vincent’s Hospital, where doctors sedated and intubated him. He claims police officers assaulted
him while he was sedated.

Meanwhile, between May and August 2017, Doremus alleges Zaborowski filed multiple false
police reports against him for violation of a temporary protection order; these false reports led to his
arrest in June 2017. Doremus further alleges that while he was detained, he was transported to and
from the hospital several times. Due to his high blood pressure, he contends the Toledo Police
Department should have provided medical transport via ambulance. He claims they failed to do so in
a retaliatory attempt to kill him. He also alleges medical staff falsified his hospital records.
Finally, in August 2017, Doremus alleges Zaborowski violated a protection order by coming
within thirty feet of his home, but the Toledo police refused to arrest her. He provides no other details
about this incident.
STANDARD FOR DISMISSAL
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). This Court, however, is required to dismiss an
action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or lacks
an arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989). An action has no arguable
basis in law when a defendant is immune from suit or when Plaintiff claims a violation of a legal
interest which clearly does not exist. Id. at 327. An action has no arguable factual basis when the
allegations are “delusional” or “wholly incredible.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
This Court must construe the Complaint in the light most favorable to Doremus, accept all
factual allegations as true, and determine whether the Complaint contains “enough facts to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The
Complaint must contain “more than labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements.”
Id. It need not contain detailed factual allegations, but its “factual allegations must be enough to raise

2

a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. This Court is “not bound to accept as true a legal
conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986). A claim is
plausible when the Complaint contains “factual content that allows the Court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009).
ANALYSIS
As an initial matter, Doremus fails to identify a federal cause of action against Zaborowski,
Schwabel, the St. Vincent’s Hospital staff, the Lucas County Sheriff, the Toledo Municipal Court, or
the Toledo Municipal Court employees. He contends Zaborowski filed multiple false police reports
against him and violated a state court protection order. He claims Schwabel assaulted him, and hospital
staff falsified his medical records. Doremus does not identify a federal cause of action against any of
these individuals, and none is apparent on the face of the Complaint.
Doremus alleges Zaborowski’s grandfather is connected to the Lucas County Sheriff in some
way. He does not, however, allege any facts pertaining to the Lucas County Sheriff, and does not assert
any legal claims against him. Similarly, he does not allege facts pertaining to the Toledo Municipal
Court or its employees, nor does he assert legal claims against them. Although the standard of review
is liberal, the Complaint must give Defendants fair notice of the claims against them to meet the basic
pleading requirements of Federal Civil Procedure Rule 8. Lillard v. Shelby Cty. Bd. of Educ., 76 F.3d
716, 726–27 (6th Cir. 1996); Bassett v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 528 F.3d 426, 437 (6th Cir.
2008). The claims against these Defendants do not meet the minimum pleading requirements to state
a plausible claim upon which relief may be granted.

3

In addition, Doremus sues the Toledo Police Department, claiming Toledo police officers
refused to file charges against others who wronged him, and held him down while medical personnel
sedated him. The police department, being a mere arm of the City of Toledo, is not its own entity, and
is not capable of being sued under Section 1983. Petty v. Cty. of Franklin, Ohio, 478 F.3d 341, 347
(6th Cir. 2007), abrogated on other grounds, Bailey v. City of Ann Arbor, 860 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2017).
Instead, the claims against the police department are liberally construed as claims against the City
itself.
As a rule, local governments may not be sued under Section 1983 for an injury inflicted solely
by employees or agents under a respondeat superior theory of liability. See Monell v. Dept. of Soc.
Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). “Instead, it is when execution of a government’s policy or custom,
whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official
policy, inflicts the injury that the government as an entity is responsible under § 1983.” Id. at 694. A
municipality can therefore be held liable when it unconstitutionally “implements or executes a policy
statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body’s
officers.” Id. at 690; DePiero v. City of Macedonia, 180 F.3d 770, 786 (6th Cir. 1999). The Complaint
contains no suggestion of a custom or policy of the City of Toledo that may have violated Doremus’s
constitutional rights. Thus, he fails to state a claim against the Toledo Police Department.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, this action is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). This Court certifies that an
appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Jack Zouhary
JACK ZOUHARY
U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE
February 26, 2018
4