Amison v. Canton Ohio Police Department et al

Filing 6

Memorandum Opinion and Order: Defendants Canton Police Department and Officer Shackle are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e). The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from their dismissal could n ot be taken in good faith. The Clerk's Office is directed to forward the appropriate documents to the U.S. Marshal for service of process on Officer Legg. A copy of this order shall be included with the documents to be served on him. Judge Sara Lioi on 10/30/2014. (P,J)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

STEVEN AMISON,

PLAINTIFF,
vs.

CANTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al,

DEFENDANTS.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 5:14cv987

JUDGE SARA LIOI

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff pro se Steven Amison brings this in forma pauperis 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action against Defendants Canton Police Department and Canton Police Officers Legg and
Shackle. Plaintiff alleges Officer Legg intentionally struck him with a police vehicle and then
beat him.
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S.
364, 365, 102 S.Ct. 700, 70 L.Ed.2d 551 (1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), the district 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. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104
L.Ed.2d 338 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990); Sistrunk v. City of
Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996).
While Plaintiff’s claims against Officer Legg may have arguable merit, the same
cannot be said regarding his claims against the other two Defendants. The Canton Police
Department is not an entity capable of being sued. Matthews v. Jones, 35 F.3d 1046, 1049 (6th

Cir. 1994). Further, there are no allegations connecting Officer Shackle to the acts of which
Plaintiff complains. Therefore, the Canton Police Department and Officer Shackle are not
proper parties to this action.
Based on the foregoing, Defendants Canton Police Department and Officer Shackle
are 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 their dismissal could not be taken in good faith.
The Clerk's Office is directed to forward the appropriate documents to the U.S.
Marshal for service of process on Officer Legg. A copy of this order shall be included with
the documents to be served on him.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 30, 2014
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2