Fields v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

Filing 5

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 4 MOTION for Default Judgment: The Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the motion be denied. Further, because Mr. Fields has named as a defendant only the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, the Court will re commend that this case be dismissed on grounds of Eleventh Amendment immunity. Objections to R&R due within fourteen days of the date of this Report. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terence P. Kemp on 6/3/2015. (er) (This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Gerald D. Fields,

:

Plaintiff,

:

v.

:

Ohio Department of
:
Rehabilitation and Correction,
Defendant.

Case No. 2:15-cv-1271
JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
Magistrate Judge Kemp

:
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This case, filed by Gerald D. Fields, a state prisoner
currently housed in the Franklin Medical Center, is before the
Court on Mr. Fields’ motion for default judgment and for an
initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1915(e) and 1915A.

For

the following reasons, the Court will recommend that the motion
for default judgment be denied.

Further, because Mr. Fields has

named as a defendant only the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation
and Correction, the Court will recommend that this case be
dismissed on grounds of Eleventh Amendment immunity.
I.

Motion for Default Judgment

Turning first to the motion for default judgment, two
problems with this motion are quickly apparent from the Court’s
docket.

First, Mr. Fields has not provided a completed summons

to allow service to be made on the ODRC.

“‘It is axiomatic that

service of process must be effective under the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure before a default or default judgment may be
entered against a defendant.’”

Long v. Finch, 2015 WL 1637517,

*4 (E.D. Mich. April 13, 2015), quoting Maryland State Firemen’s
Ass’n v. Chaves, 166 F.R.D. 353, 354 (D.Md. 1996).

Further, a

motion for default judgment is governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 55.

The

plain language of that rule indicates that an entry of default is

a prerequisite to an entry of default judgment.

Redd v. Vails,

2015 WL 1808347, *2 (E.D. Mich. April 21, 2015).

Mr. Fields has

not requested the entry of default nor could such entry occur
given that service has not been completed.

For these reasons,

the Court will recommend that Mr. Fields’ motion for default
judgment be denied.
II.

Initial Screening

Turning to the merits of Mr. Fields’ complaint, 28 U.S.C.
§1915(e)(2) provides that in proceedings in forma pauperis,
“[t]he court shall dismiss the case if ... (B) the action ... is
frivolous or malicious [or] fails to state a claim on which
relief can be granted....”

28 U.S.C. §1915A further provides

that in any prisoner case, the Court shall dismiss the complaint
or any portion of it if, upon an initial screening, it appears
that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted or seeks monetary damages from a defendant who is
immune from suit.

The purpose of these statutory sections is to

prevent suits which are a waste of judicial resources and which a
paying litigant would not initiate because of the costs involved.
See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989).

A complaint may be

dismissed as frivolous only when the plaintiff fails to present a
claim with an arguable or rational basis in law or fact.
at 325.

See id.

Claims which lack such a basis include those for which

the defendants are clearly entitled to immunity and claims of
infringement of a legal interest which does not exist, see id. at
327-28, and “claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios,
claims with which federal district judges are all too familiar.”
Id. at 328; see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992).

A

complaint may not be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted if the complaint contains “enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007).
-2-

Claims against defendants who are immune from suits for money
damages, such as judges or prosecutors acting in their judicial
or prosecutorial capacity, are also within the ambit of §1915A.
Pro se complaints are to be construed liberally in favor of the
pro se party.

See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972).

It is

with these standards in mind that the plaintiff’s complaint will
be considered.
According to the complaint, Mr. Fields believes he was
awarded insufficient compensation by the Ohio Court of Claims in
connection with an action for negligence and deliberate
indifference.

As the Court reads the complaint, Mr. Fields

contends that the ODRC impeded his access to documentation to
support his claims as a result of its failure to establish
reporting protocols and professional standards for medical
attention.

Mr. Fields requests monetary damages, including

punitive damages, in relief.
The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution
bars suits against either a state or agencies of a state unless
Congress has explicitly abrogated a state’s immunity to suit or
the state has consented to suit.
(1974).

Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651

When a suit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment, the

Court lacks jurisdiction over it and it must be dismissed without
prejudice.

Cf. Gwinn Area Comm. Schools v. State of Michigan,

741 F.2d 840, 846-47 (6th Cir. 1984).
The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction is an
arm of the State.

As such, it is immune from suit for damages

under the Eleventh Amendment.

See Will v. Michigan Dept. of

State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65-66 (1989); Foulks v. Ohio Dept. of
Rehabilitation and Correction, 713 F.2d 1229, 1232 (6th Cir.
1983).

Consequently, the Court will recommend dismissal of this

action in its entirety on grounds of Eleventh Amendment immunity.
III.

Recommendation
-3-

For the reasons stated above, it is recommended that the
motion for default judgment (Doc. 4) be denied.

It is further

recommended that this case be dismissed on grounds of Eleventh
Amendment immunity.

Should the Court adopt this recommendation,

a copy of the complaint, this Report and Recommendation, and the
dismissal order should be mailed to the defendant.
PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that
party may, within fourteen days of the date of this Report, file
and serve on all parties written objections to those specific
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made,
together with supporting authority for the objection(s).

A judge

of this Court shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.

Upon proper

objections, a judge of this Court may accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein,
may receive further evidence or may recommit this matter to the
magistrate judge with instructions.

28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1).

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object
to the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the
right to have the district judge review the Report and
Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the
right to appeal the decision of the District Court adopting the
Report and Recommendation.

See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140

(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir.1981).

/s/ Terence P. Kemp
United States Magistrate Judge

-4-