Dumas v. Christian et al
Filing
3
Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons set forth herein, this action is dismissed under § 1915A. Furthermore, 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 Benita Y. Pearson on 8/31/2016. (JLG)
PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
NATHANIEL DUMAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
JUDGE SHIRLEY J. CHRISTIAN, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 4:16CV1705
JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER
On July 1, 2016, Pro Se Plaintiff Nathaniel Dumas, an inmate at the Ross Correctional
Institution, filed this civil rights action against Mahoning County Common Pleas Judge Shirley J.
Christrian and Mahoning County. The Complaint (ECF No. 1) consists mainly of broad legal
assertions that Defendants committed criminal civil rights violations against Plaintiff. Insofar as
facts are set forth, Plaintiff alleges Judge Christian “falsified the judgment entry” by denying a
post-judgment motion in his case. ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 4. Plaintiff also appears to allege that
Judge Christian was an investigator in a claim against Plaintiff’s former counsel, but never did
anything with regard to the investigation. ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 5-6. Finally, Plaintiff alleges
Mahoning County is liable for “hiring” Judge Christian. ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 2. 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
(4:16CV1705)
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).
Principles requiring generous construction of pro se pleadings are not without limits.
Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1277 (4th Cir. 1985). A complaint must contain
either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements of some viable legal
theory to satisfy federal notice pleading requirements. See Schied v. Fanny Farmer Candy
Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434, 437 (6th Cir. 1988). District courts are not required to conjure up
questions never squarely presented to them or to construct full blown claims from sentence
fragments. Beaudette, 775 F.2d at 1278. To do so would “require . . . [the courts] to explore
exhaustively all potential claims of a pro se plaintiff, . . . [and] would . . .transform the district
court from its legitimate advisory role to the improper role of an advocate seeking out the
strongest arguments and most successful strategies for a party.” Id.
Judicial officers are generally absolutely immune from suits for money damages. Mireles
v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9 (1991); Barnes v. Winchell, 105 F.3d 1111, 1115 (6th Cir. 1997). This
far-reaching protection is needed to ensure that the independent and impartial exercise of
judgment is not impaired by the exposure to potential damages. Barnes, 105 F.3d at 1115. For
this reason, absolute immunity is overcome only in two situations: (1) when the conduct alleged
is not performed in the judge’s judicial capacity; or (2) when the conduct alleged, although
judicial in nature, is taken in complete absence of all jurisdiction. Mireles, 502 U.S. at 11-12;
Barnes, 105 F.3d at 1116. Plaintiff alleges no facts suggesting either of these criteria has been
met in this case.
2
(4:16CV1705)
Furthermore, to the extent he seeks to bring a criminal action, Plaintiff lacks standing to
do so. See Keenan v. McGrath, 328 F.2d 610, 611 (1st Cir. 1964); Bass Angler Sportsman Soc’y
v. U.S. Steel Corp., 324 F.Supp. 412, 415 (S.D.Ala.), aff’d, 447 F.2d 1304 (5th Cir.1971); see
also Cok v. Cosentino, 876 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1989) (only the United States can bring complaint
under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241-242). Such cases are initiated only by the United States Attorney. 28
U.S.C. § 547; Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(c).
Finally, even liberally construed, the Complaint (ECF No. 1) does not contain allegations
reasonably suggesting Plaintiff might have a valid federal claim against Mahoning County. See,
e.g., Lillard v. Shelby Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 76 F.3d 716, 726 (6th Cir. 1996) (court not required to
accept summary allegations or unwarranted legal conclusions in determining whether complaint
states a claim for relief).
Accordingly, this action is dismissed under § 1915A. Furthermore, 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.
August 31, 2016
Date
/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge
3
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?