Moshir v. NEOCC et al
Memorandum of Opinion and Order dismissing this action without prejudice to any valid state law claim Plaintiff may have (related docs 1 , 3 ). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.1915(a)(3), the Court certifies that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 10/13/2017(C,KA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
NORTHEAST OHIO CORRECTIONAL
CENTER, et al.,
CASE NO. 4:17CV1480
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 ECF No. 3. Pro se Plaintiff Ali Moshir, an inmate at the Northeast
Ohio Correctional Center (“NEOCC”), brings this civil rights action in forma pauperis against
Defendants NEOCC, Warden, CCA/Core Civic, the United States Marshal Service, the federal
government, the State of Ohio, Mahoning County, Ohio, and Officer Andres. In his complaint,
Plaintiff alleges that he was getting drinking water from the day room when another inmate
assaulted him. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also alleges he would not have had to get water in the day
room if the water in his cell had been drinkable. Id. He seeks $1 billion in damages.
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 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). Construing the complaint liberally, Plaintiff’s
allegations as to Officer Andres fail to rise above negligence. Cf. Dillon v. Wilson, No. 85-5566,
821 F.2d 649(Table)(6th Cir. Jun. 29, 1987) (affirming sua sponte dismissal on ground that
complaint, at most, claimed negligence). This is fatal to his claim against Officer Andres.
Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Officer Andres upon which the Court can grant
As to all other Defendants, Plaintiff makes no allegations connecting any of those
Defendants with the incident recounted in the complaint. This is fatal to his claims against all
remaining Defendants. 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).
Additionally, a 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). Plaintiff’s failure to meet these basic
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. Harris v. Johnson, 784 F.2d 222, 224 (6th Cir. 1986);
Brooks v. Seiter, 779 F.2d 1177, 1179 (6th Cir. 1985).
pleading requirements cause Plaintiff’s claims against the remaining Defendants also fail to state
a claim upon which the Court can grant relief.
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. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1915(a)(3), the Court certifies that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 13, 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?