Jones v. Warden Ross Correctional Institution et al

Filing 4

INITIAL SCREENING AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Plaintiff's Motion 1 for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED on the CONDITION that Plaintiff submits a prison cashier's statement of inmate account within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. The Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the complaint be DISMISSED because it fails to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Defendants do not have to respond to the complaint unless the Court rejects this Report and Recommendation - objections due w/in fourteen (14) days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark R. Abel on 06/24/2011. (sr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

Jason Jones,

:
Plaintiff

Defendants

Judge Marbley

:

Rob Jeffreys, et al.,

Civil Action 2:11-cv-0551

:

v.

:

Magistrate Judge Abel

:

Initial Screening Report and Recommendation
Plaintiff Jason Jones brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Plaintiff's motion to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs is GRANTED on the
CONDITION that he submits a prison cashier's statement of inmate account within
thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.
This matter is before the Magistrate Judge for screening of the complaint under
28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2) to identify cognizable claims, and to recommend dismissal of the
complaint, or any portion of it, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief. See, McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608 (6th Cir. 1997). The
Magistrate Judge finds that the complaint fails to give defendants fair notice of the
claims asserted against them and, therefore, recommends dismissal of the complaint.
The complaint alleges that defendants Rob Jeffreys, Ross Correctional Institution
Warden; Ross Correctional Institution Institutional Inspector Witter, Ross Correctional

Institution Lt. Lungsford; Ross Correctional Institution Lt. Morison, and Ross
Correctional Institution Lt. Powers conspired under color of state law to deprive
plaintiff Jones of his constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.
When considering whether a complaint fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6),
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court must construe it in the light most favorable to
the plaintiff and accept all well-pleaded material allegations in the complaint as true.
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974); Roth Steel Products v. Sharon Steel Corp., 705
F.2d 134, 155 (6th Cir. 1983). Rule 8(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for
notice pleading. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). The United States Supreme
Court held in Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007):
. . . Rule 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Specific facts showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief are not necessary; the statement need only
"'give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds
upon which it rests.': Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 555, 127
S.Ct. 1955 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).
Moreover, pro se complaints must be liberally construed. Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94; Hughes
v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9-10 (1980). Nonetheless, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' Twombly,
550 U.S. at 570." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009).
Analysis. The complaint does not allege the acts each individual defendant
committed that subjected Jones to cruel and unusual punishment, when those acts
occurred, where those acts occurred, or the injuries Jones sustained. Consequently, the

2

complaint does not give defendants fair notice of the claims asserted against them and
the grounds upon which the claims rests.
Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the complaint be
DISMISSED because it fails to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Defendants do not
have to respond to the complaint unless the Court rejects this Report and
Recommendation.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's application to proceed without
prepayment of fees be GRANTED. The United States Marshal is ORDERED to serve
upon each defendant named in the complaint a copy of the complaint and a copy of this
Order.
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within
fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties a motion for reconsideration by the
Court, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part thereof
in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B); Rule 72(b),
Fed. R. Civ. P.
The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and
Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District
Judge and waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-52 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). See
also, Small v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989).

3

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail a copy of the complaint and this Report
and Recommendation to each defendant.

s/Mark R. Abel
United States Magistrate Judge

4