Worth v. Wamsley et al
Filing
40
ORDER AFFIRMING THE [13 & 25] REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; OVERRULING [18 & 32] Plaintiff's objections; DISMISSING AS MOOT 22 Plaintiff's Motion to Strike and 24 Motion to take Judicial Notice. DENYING 11 Plaintiff's Motion for Pr eliminary Injunction. DISMISSING Plaintiff's claims. This case is DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Algenon L. Marbley on 3/14/2018. (cw)(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
WILLIAM A. WORTH, II,
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Plaintiff,
v.
BRENDA WAMSLEY, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 2:17-cv-00043
JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY
Magistrate Judge Deavers
OPINION & ORDER
Plaintiff William A. Worth II, an Ohio inmate proceeding without assistance of counsel,
brings these claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Brenda Wamsley, Sherri RoseSmith, and John/Jane Does (unknown). Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint that Defendants denied
him meaningful access to the courts. There are several matters before the Court for
consideration: Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and/or in the Alternative, for a
Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 11); Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (ECF No. 22);
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 14) and; Plaintiff’s Motion to Take Judicial Notice
(ECF No. 24). For the reasons stated herein, upon de novo review, this Court OVERRULES
Plaintiff’s Objections, AFFIRMS the Magistrate Judge’s various Report and Recommendations
and hereby DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claims.
I.
BACKGROUND
On January 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed the Complaint in the instant action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, asserting that Defendants denied him meaningful access to the courts by denying him
notary services afforded to indigent Ohio prisoners, all according to a “clandestine” policy of the
prison. (ECF No. 1 at 6). The complaint indicates that Plaintiff is suing all Defendants in both
their respective individual and official capacities. (ECF No. 1 at 2).
Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, all working at Pickaway Correctional
Institution (“PCI”) improperly denied him notarization of his required form that he personally
drafted (the Affidavit of Indigence in Lieu of Fees); instead, he alleges that Defendants requested
that he submit a form from the prison cashier and obtain a six-month financial certification and
financial statement of his prison account. (ECF No.1 at 4). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have
created a “clandestine” policy that is designed to deny meaningful access to the courts and
discriminate against indigent prisoners, therefore violating substantive and procedural due
process rights. Id. at 6. According to the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he has exhausted all
available administrative remedies before filing the instant action. Id. at 3.
II.
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND/OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
A.
Background
This Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s facts pertaining to the factual and procedural
background on the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction in full.
On April 4, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending
the denial of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and/or in the alternative, a Temporary
Restraining Order. (ECF No. 13 at 1). The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s
preliminary injunction motion be denied because the relief sought and the reasoning for that
relief are unrelated to the allegations set forth in the Complaint. Id. at 4-5. The Magistrate
Judge noted the discrepancy in relief requested by both the Complaint and this Motion; Plaintiff
requests access to notary services and monetary compensation while the relief sought in the
Complaint is access to the main law library at the prison for disabled inmates. Id. at 5.
2
B.
Standard
If a party objects within the allotted time to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation, the Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report
or specified proposed findings or recommendation to which the objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Upon review, the Court “may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
While pro se litigants’ allegations are held to a less stringent standard, courts have found
that pro se litigants must at least meet minimum standards of pleading. See Wells v. Brown, 891
F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989).
C.
Analysis
This Court agrees with the decision and analysis of the Magistrate Judge, not only based
on the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning, but because the Plaintiff failed to comply with the deadline
set under the objection procedure entailed in the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”).
According to the R&R, if the plaintiff seeks review by the District Judge, she must file
and serve all parties objections within fourteen days. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b). As the Magistrate Judge specifically advised Plaintiff in the R&R that the failure timely to
file objections would result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and
the waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. (ECF No. 13 at 5). The
Magistrate Judge issued the R&R on April 4, 2017, making any objections due by April 18,
2017. Plaintiff filed objections to R&R on June 6, 2017 nearly two months after the deadline.
(Docket). It should be noted that the Court did not grant Plaintiff a Motion for Extension of
Time. Due to the fact that Plaintiff failed to file any objections to the R&R in a timely manner,
3
Plaintiff waived his right to have a District Judge review this R&R de novo and waived his right
to appeal the decision of the District Court adopting this R&R.
This Court has previously held that “[w]hile a plaintiff’s pro se status alone is insufficient
to excuse late filing, pro se litigants are often afforded a special solicitude by courts, particularly
in the enforcement of procedural rules.” Boyd v. United States, 932 F. Supp. 2d 830, 840 (S.D.
Ohio 2013 (citing Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 101-03 (2d Cir. 2010); Dutil v. Murphy,
550 F.3d 154, 158 (1st Cir. 2008); Adams v. Nankervis, 902 F.2d 1578 (9th Cir. 1990); Beaudett
v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1277-78 (4th Cir. 1985)). Although Plaintiff was nearly two
months late in filing objections to the R&R, the Court will nonetheless analyze the substance of
Plaintiff’s objection.
Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge’s R&R on the basis that the matters raised in his
Motion for Preliminary Injunction were included in the Complaint. (ECF No. 18 at 3). Plaintiff
objects to Magistrate Judge’s use of De Beers Consol. Mines Ltd. v. United States in the R&R
that “[a preliminary injunction] is inappropriate where the injunction ‘deals with a matter lying
wholly outside of the issues in the suit’”. (ECF No. 13 at 4). Plaintiff alleges that the facts and
relief requested in the Motion for Preliminary Injunction is included in the Complaint itself.
(ECF No. 18 at 4).
Defendants filed a Response to Plaintiff’s Objections arguing that this Court should
affirm the Magistrate Judge’s R&R on several grounds. (ECF No. 20 at 2). Defendant first draws
attention to the fact that Plaintiff failed to file timely his objections within the requisite
timeframe. Id. Defendant also argues that Plaintiff fails to meet the burden of proving that his
circumstances satisfy the conditions necessary for granting a preliminary injunction because
4
Plaintiff fails to connect the issues in the Complaint with the relief sought by the preliminary
injunction. Id.
In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge emphasizes that the Plaintiff’s burden to prove
circumstances necessary for a preliminary injunction is even more difficult to satisfy where the
“prison inmate seeks a preliminary injunction to obtain affirmative relief beyond maintenance of
the status quo.” (EFC No. 13 at 3). In this case, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that
Plaintiff fails to establish a connection between the relief sought under the Motion for the
Preliminary Injunction and the relief sought in his Complaint. If a party fails to establish a
relationship between the requested relief in the preliminary injunction and the conduct alleged in
the complaint, the Court may deny the motion. See, e.g., Tolliver v. Collins, 20101 WL 2640061
at *1 (S.D. Ohio 2010)(“[A] party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish
a relationship between the injury claimed in the party’s motion and the conduct asserted in the
conduct asserted in the complaint.”) The relief sought in the Complaint is access to notary
services and monetary compensation. (EFC No. 1 at 7). The relief sought in the Motion for
Preliminary Injunction is to allow disabled inmates access to the main law library and to allow
Plaintiff to receive assistance from a handicapped inmate. (ECF No. 11 at 11). This Court finds a
discrepancy in the relief sought and the conduct alleged.
Thus, the Court OVERRULES
Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 18) and AFFIRMS the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge
(ECF No. 13). Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 11) is DENIED.
III.
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
A.
Background
This Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s facts pertaining to the factual and procedural
background on the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in full. On October 20, 2017, the Magistrate
5
Judge issued an R&R recommending the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be granted. (ECF No.
25 at 1). The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Defendants’ Motion be granted on a
multitude of grounds. First, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff’s allegations of causation
are not facially plausible because Defendants’ inactions did not certainly cause Plaintiff to miss
his filing deadline. Id. at 6. The Magistrate Judge also found that Plaintiff’s underlying legal
cause is futile because his application for reconsideration was not submitted in a timely manner
and therefore is time-barred. Id. at 7. The last reason the Magistrate Judge gave for granting the
Motion to Dismiss is that the Plaintiff failed to plead constitutional deprivation resulting from
intentional conduct; the R&R states that the Defendants’ actions amount to mere negligence. Id.
at 8.
B.
Standard
The same standard relating to objecting to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation applies here. Thus, if a party fails to object to the magistrate judge’s report
and recommendation within the allotted time, he waives his right to de novo review.
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (12)(b)(6)
to dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint. A case may be dismissed if the complaint does not state a
claim on which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “A motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim is a test of the plaintiff’s cause of action as stated in the complaint, not a challenge
to the plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Golden v. City of Columbus, 404 F.3d 950, 958-59 (6th Cir.
2005). A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted when the plaintiff does
not prove a set of facts consistent with the claims in the complaint that would entitle him to
relief. Jones v. City of Carlisle, 3 F.3d 945, 947 (6th Cir. 1993). However, the Court must
construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and make reasonable
6
inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Total Benefits Planning Agency, Inc. v. Anthem
Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 553 F.3d 430, 434 (6th Cir. 2008).
C.
Analysis
This Court agrees with the decision and analysis of the Magistrate Judge, not only based
on the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning, but once again because Plaintiff failed to comply with the
deadline set under the objection procedure entailed in the R&R.
According to the R&R, if the plaintiff seeks review by the District Judge, they must file
and serve all parties objections within fourteen days. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b). As the Magistrate Judge specifically advised the Plaintiff in the R&R that the failure
timely to file objections would result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District
Judge and the waiver of the right to appeal the judgment to the District Court. (ECF No. 25 at 9).
The Magistrate Judge issued the R&R on October 20, 2017, making any objections due by
November 3, 2017. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File an Objection to the Report and
Recommendation on November 7, 2017. (ECF No. 28). The Magistrate Judge granted the
motion and set the deadline for objections at December 4, 2017. (ECF No. 29). Plaintiff
requested an additional extension on December 4, 2017. (ECF No. 30). The Magistrate Judge
granted the extension and moved the deadline to December 24, 2017. (ECF No. 31). Plaintiff
filed objections to R&R on January 2, 2018, over a week after the deadline. (ECF No. 32).
Due to the fact that Plaintiff failed to file any objections to the R&R in a timely manner,
Plaintiff waived his right to have a District Judge review this R&R de novo and waived his right
to appeal the decision of a District Court adopting this R&R. Even upon de novo review,
however, the Report and Recommendation must be adopted. Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate
Judge’s R&R on the grounds that he stated a claim for denial of meaningful access to the courts,
7
substantive and procedural due process of law and equal protection when Defendants intently
denied him notary services. (ECF No. 32 at 4). The Plaintiff contends that his underlying claims
were not futile, as he claims that the Defendants acted with deliberate nature in violating his
rights and enforcing the “clandestine” policy. Id. at 8-9.
Defendants filed a Response to Plaintiff’s Objections arguing that this Court should
affirm the Magistrate Judge’s R&R on several grounds. (ECF No. 34 at 1). Defendant again
draws attention to the fact that Plaintiff failed timely to file his objections within the requisite
timeframe. Id. Defendant also contends that Plaintiff failed to present new arguments that the
Magistrate Judge did not consider in recommending granting the Motion to Dismiss, stating that
Plaintiff merely recites the same arguments. Id. at 2. Defendant also reiterates Magistrate Judge’s
reasons for granting the Motion to Dismiss, including Plaintiff’s claims of causation are not
facially plausible and that his underlying claims are futile. Id. at 3.
The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff failed to state a claim on which relief can be
granted for a multitude of reasons listed above. In this case, the Court agrees with the Magistrate
Judge that Plaintiff fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted, and therefore does not
satisfy the pleading requirements necessary to survive a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff failed to
prove intent by the Defendants to deprive him of his rights and finds that the Defendants’
conduct amounts to mere negligence. Plaintiff has not alleged in the Complaint any facts that
show that Defendants intentionally acted to deny his access to the courts. In order successfully to
state a claim under Section 1983, Plaintiff must show that the Defendants acted with conduct that
surpasses the standard of mere negligence. Gibbs v. Hopkins, 10 F.3d 373, 379 (6th Cir.1993).
Thus, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 32) and AFFIRMS the
8
recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 25). Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF
No. 14) is GRANTED.
IV.
MOTION TO STRIKE
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Objections (ECF No.
20) and Defendants’ Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss (ECF 21) on the basis that
Defendants allege insufficient defenses, set forth redundant and impertinent claims, among
others. As this Court sustains the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge to grant the
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, even without considering Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s
Objections or Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (ECF No. 22)
is MOOT.
V.
MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ADJUDICATIVE FACTS
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts to ask the Court to
recognize that the officials of the ODRC have changed their policy for providing notary services
for indigent prisoners. As this Court sustains the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge to
grant the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, regardless of whether the facts in Plaintiff’s Motion
are considered, Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (ECF No. 24) is MOOT.
VI. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No.
11) is DENIED, his Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No.
18) is OVERRULED, and the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 13) is
AFFIRMED. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED, the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 25) is AFFIRMED, and Plaintiff’s Objection to
the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 32) is OVERRULED.
9
Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (ECF No. 22) and Motion to take Judicial Notice (ECF No. 24) are
DISMISSED as MOOT. Plaintiff’s claims are hereby DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Algenon L. Marbley
ALGENON L. MARBLEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: March 14, 2018
10
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?