Patterson v. Cincinnati Police Dept.

Filing 7

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re #6 Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a) that an appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in good faith and therefore deny Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Objections to R&R due by 9/29/2022. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 9/15/2022. (km)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.) Modified Docket Text to Clarify on 9/16/2022 (km).

Case: 1:22-cv-00490-MWM-SKB Doc #: 7 Filed: 09/15/22 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 183
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
LAVELLE PATTERSON,

Case No. 1:22-cv-490

Plaintiff,

McFarland, J.
Bowman, M.J.

v.
CINCINNATI POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On August 22, 2022, Plaintiff Lavelle Patterson, proceeding pro se, tendered a
complaint against the Cincinnati Police Department.

Plaintiff was granted leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, and by Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) filed on
September 2, 2022, the undersigned recommended dismissal of Plaintiff’s lawsuit
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B).
On September 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in order to add
Venture Communities as a Defendant. (Doc. 6). In the interests of judicial economy, the
analysis of the prior R&R is incorporated in its entirety. This Supplemental R&R therefore
is limited to the additional claim(s) stated by Plaintiff against Venture Communities in her
amended complaint.
I.

Background

In general, Plaintiff alleged in her initial complaint that the police have been
“harassing [her] and discriminating” against her. (Doc. 1-2 at 3, PageID 8). In support of
this accusation, she alleges that police have been using surveillance devices on her “for
nearly 9 years,” which has “compelled me [Plaintiff] to run into cars unwillingly.” (Id.) She
further alleges that unidentified police officers have “sabotaged many of my jobs” leading
1

Case: 1:22-cv-00490-MWM-SKB Doc #: 7 Filed: 09/15/22 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: 184
to financial struggles and difficulties with “maintaining housing.” (Id.) She alleges that
she has submitted citizen complaints with the police department to no avail, leading her
to file this federal lawsuit. (Id.) Plaintiff also alleges in her original complaint as well as
in her newly amended complaint that she identifies as a “trans female.” The original
complaint alleges a “consistent pattern of corruption of law enforcement” in Plaintiff’s prior
state of residence, Pennsylvania, and that the police corruption “followed me” when she
moved to Cincinnati in June of 2021. (Doc. 1-2 at 4, PageID 9).
Plaintiff’s amended complaint contains virtually identical allegations. She alleges,
for example, a “consistent pattern of corruption of law enforcement in both states,
Pennsylvania and Ohio that began in Delaware County Pennsylvania and followed me to
Cincinnati Ohio June of 2021.” (Doc. 6 at 2, PageID 179 (email exhibit attached to
amended complaint)). In her amended complaint, she also repeats prior allegations that
police “have been using [] surveillance devices for nearly 9 years” against her that have
“compelled me to run into cars unwillingly,” and have “destroyed 5 cars in Pennsylvania,”
and “sabotaged many of my jobs….” (Doc. 6 at 4, PageID 181).
The most significant difference between the initial and amended complaints is the
addition of Venture Communities as a Defendant.

Plaintiff alleges that Venture

Communities
[]knowingly and intentionally allowed Cincinnati police department [to] install
audio and visual devices in my apartment without my consent. They also
have tenants as informants working with them. Gross violation of my
privacy rights. According to the no one has the right to record me especially
while I using my bathroom, bedroom or any where else without my
knowledge of it. Wrongly surveillance is obvious. I asked the court to
prosecute Cincinnati police department to fullest extent of the law. Venture
Communities knowingly and intentionally allowed Cincinnati police
department to install audio and visual devices in my apartment.
(Id. at 4, PageID 181 (minimal corrections as shown for legibility)).

2

Case: 1:22-cv-00490-MWM-SKB Doc #: 7 Filed: 09/15/22 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: 185
For the same reasons expressed in the prior R&R, which is fully incorporated as if
restated herein, the undersigned recommends dismissal of the amended complaint.
Plaintiff’s additional allegations against the newly identified Defendant, Venture
Communities, do not cure her failure to state any cognizable claim against either
Defendant.

Plaintiff’s factual allegations are illogical to the point of being

incomprehensible. The complaint as a whole is fairly described as fantastical or
delusional, with no factual content or context from which the Court may reasonably
infer that either the City of Cincinnati Police Department or Venture Communities
violated any of Plaintiff's rights.
II.

Conclusion and Recommendation

For the reasons stated above and in the prior R&R filed on September 2, 2022,
Plaintiff’s original complaint and amended or supplemental complaint (to add Venture
Communities) are equally deficient and fail to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.

Therefore, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a) that for the foregoing reasons an appeal of any Order adopting this Report and
Recommendation would not be taken in good faith and therefore deny Plaintiff leave to
appeal in forma pauperis.

s/Stephanie K. Bowman __
Stephanie K. Bowman
United States Magistrate Judge

3

Case: 1:22-cv-00490-MWM-SKB Doc #: 7 Filed: 09/15/22 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: 186
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
LAVELLE PATTERSON,

Case No. 1:22-cv-490

Plaintiff,

McFarland, J.
Bowman, M.J.

v.
CINCINNATI POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.
NOTICE
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written
objections to this Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after
being served with a copy thereof. That period may be extended further by the Court on
timely motion by either side for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the
portion(s) of the R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in
support of the objections. A party shall respond to an opponent’s objections within
FOURTEEN DAYS after being served with a copy of those objections. Failure to make
objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

4