Howell v. Barry et al

Filing 4

Memorandum Opinion: Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A. The Court further certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. (Related Doc. No. 1 ). Judge Sara Lioi on 3/23/2017. (P,J)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

ERIC Z. HOWELL,

PLAINTIFF,
vs.

SHERIFF STEVE BARRY, et al.,

DEFENDANTS.

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

CASE NO. 5:16 cv 2309

JUDGE SARA LIOI
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pro se plaintiff Eric Howell, a prisoner in the Summit County Jail, has filed this in forma
pauperis civil action against Summit County Sheriff Steve Barry and Summit County, seeking
$10,000 in damages for “mental anguish.” (Doc. No. 1 (Complaint).) The basis for his action is
that “Sheriff Barry and the Summit County Jail housed death row inmate Lawrence Fry” in the
jail with regular inmates between July13 and July 15, 2016. (Id. at 4.)
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed and held to less stringent standards than
pleadings drafted by lawyers, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 167 L. Ed.
2d 1081 (2007), the lenient treatment generally accorded pro se plaintiffs “has limits” and pro se
plaintiffs are “not automatically entitled to take every case to trial.” Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d

413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). Federal district courts are required under 28 U.S.C. §
1915A to screen and dismiss before service any complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner
seeks redress from a governmental entity, or officer or employee of a governmental entity, that
the court determines is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915A; Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 471 (6th Cir. 2010). In order to state a claim on
which relief may be granted, a pro se complaint must set forth sufficient factual matter, accepted
as true, to state claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Hill, 630 F.3d at 471. “A claim has
facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads 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, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007)).
The plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because it
does not allege a federal claim or contain allegations reasonably suggesting a plausible federal
claim against the defendants. “Not every unpleasant experience a prisoner might endure while
incarcerated constitutes cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of the Eighth
Amendment.” Ivey v. Wilson, 832 F.2d 950, 954 (6th Cir. 1987). The Eighth Amendment is
concerned with “deprivations of essential food, medical care, or sanitation” or “other conditions
intolerable for prison confinement.” See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 348, 101 S. Ct.
2392, 69 L. Ed. 2d 59 (1981) (citation omitted). Plaintiff’s allegations do not suggest such a
condition. In addition, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) precludes any federal claim by a prisoner “for
mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury,”
2

Jennings v. Mitchell, 93 F. App’x. 723, 725 (6th Cir. 2004) (quotation marks and citation
omitted), and plaintiff nowhere suggests he was subjected to any physical injury whatsoever as a
result of the conditions of which he complains.
Conclusion
Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A. The Court
further 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.

Dated: March 23, 2017
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3