Niepsuj v. Office of Administrative Judge of Summit County Domestic Relations Court et al
Memorandum Opinion: This action is dismissed. (Related Doc. No. 1 ). Judge Sara Lioi on 5/25/2017. (P,J)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
VINCENT C. NIEPSUJ,
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE,
SUMMIT COUNTY DOMESTIC
RELATIONS COURT, et al,
CASE NO. 5:17cv687
JUDGE SARA LIOI
Pro se plaintiff Vincent C. Niepsuj brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 against defendants Office of Administrative Judge of the Summit County Domestic
Relations Court and Office of the Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court.
Plaintiff’s complaint contains minimal, and unclear, factual allegations. He appears to
allege he was the subject of a 2001 ex parte civil protection order (CPO). He pleaded no
contest to disorderly conduct, and subsequently had supervised visitation with his children. A
5-year consent decree, containing a CPO, was issued by the Summit County Court of Common
Pleas Domestic Relations Division. It was subsequently renewed.1
The thrust of the complaint is plaintiff’s general view of Ohio Rev. Code § 3113.31,
which governs CPOs. He states the Ohio law does not provide sufficient notice required by
due process, and that protection orders unduly burden “normal, non-offensive, civil speech.”
(Doc. No. 1 (Complaint [“Compl.”]) at 7.) He also contends that full CPO hearings are
Plaintiff’s allegations are not set forth sequentially, but the CPO’s renewal may well be related to his 2006
conviction for Menacing by Stalking, for which he received a term of imprisonment. See State v. Niepsuj, Summit
County Common Pleas No. CR-2006-0301036, https://www.cpclerk.co.summit.oh.us/Dockets.
deficient because potential witnesses and documentary exhibits are not made known to the
parties ahead of time. Plaintiff believes that the “philosophy of the protection order system in
Ohio is absolutely entirely wrong [because] it gives little to no acknowledgment of the good
in people and their ability to have wholesome, meaningful exchange and inter-personal (sic)
in their social spheres.” (Id. at 12.)
Plaintiff asserts the restrictions placed on him by CPOs have violated his First
Amendment right to freedom of speech and his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.
He asks that Ohio, “following New York State’s lead,” institute ‘non-offensive contact’
protection orders[.]” (Id. at 13.) He also seeks an order requiring Ohio to provide mediation
areas where parties can discuss parameters of a consent agreement CPO. (Id.)
While pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364,
365, 102 S. Ct. 700, 70 L. Ed. 2d 551 (1982), the district court may dismiss an action sua
sponte if the complaint is so “implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of
merit, or no longer open to discussion” as to deprive the Court of subject matter jurisdiction.
Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir.1999) (citing Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528,
536–37, 94 S. Ct. 1372, 39 L. Ed. 2d 577 (1974)). Plaintiff’s scant, confusing factual
allegations and his conclusory legal assertions simply do not suggest he might have a valid
claim for relief.
Accordingly, this action is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 25, 2017
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
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?