Moshir v. Valentine et al
Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons set forth herein, this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The dismissal is without prejudice to any valid state law claim Plaintiff may have under the facts alleged. 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 8/31/2017. (JLG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
OFFICER VALENTINE, et al.,
CASE NO. 4:17CV1459
JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
This case has been transferred from the United States District Court for the Western
District of New York. See Decision and Order (ECF No. 3). Pro Se Plaintiff Ali Moshir, an
inmate at the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center (“NEOCC”) at the time he filed this in forma
pauperis civil rights action against Defendants Officer Valentine, NEOCC, Corrections
Corporation of America (“CCA”)/Core Civic, the United States Marshals Service, the federal
government, the State of Ohio, and Mahoning County, Ohio, alleges in the Complaint (ECF No.
1) that another inmate, Grant, became upset after Plaintiff answered his legal question. Officer
Valentine nevertheless permitted Grant to enter the housing unit after Plaintiff, where Grant
began punching him in the head and face. Plaintiff seeks one billion dollars in damages. ECF
No. 1 at PageID #: 5.
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 district 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.1 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).
It is well established that negligence cannot form the basis for a civil rights action.
Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986). Even construing the Complaint (ECF No. 1) liberally,
the facts set forth appear, at most, to assert negligence on the part of Officer Valentine. Dillon v.
Wilson, No. 85-5566, 1987 WL 37855, at *1 (6th Cir. June 29, 1987) (affirming sua sponte
dismissal on ground that complaint at most claimed negligence). Moreover, there are no
allegations connecting any of the other Defendants with the incident recounted in the Complaint
(ECF No. 1). A plaintiff must allege how each defendant was personally involved in the acts
about which the plaintiff complains. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 375 (1976). The plaintiff
must “allege ‘with particularity’ all material facts to be relied upon when asserting that a
governmental official has violated a constitutional right.” Terrance v. Northville Reg’l
Psychiatric Hosp., 286 F.3d 834, 842 (6th Cir. 2002).
Accordingly, this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The dismissal is
without prejudice to any valid state law claim Plaintiff may have under the facts alleged. The
A claim may be dismissed sua sponte, without prior notice to the plaintiff and
without service of process on the defendant, if the court explicitly states that it is invoking
section 1915(e) [formerly 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)] and is dismissing the claim for one of the
reasons set forth in the statute. McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608-09 (6th Cir.
1997) (overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007); Harris v.
Johnson, 784 F.2d 222, 224 (6th Cir. 1986); Brooks v. Seiter, 779 F.2d 1177, 1179 (6th
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, 2017
/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge
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?