Sinkovitz v. O'Connor

Filing 2

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that 1 Complaint be DISMISSED. Objections to R&R due by 4/14/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 3/31/2017. (agm)(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

PAUL SINKOVITZ,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action 2:17-cv-256
Judge Algenon L. Marbley
Magistrate Judge Jolson

MAUREEN O’CONNOR,
Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the Southeastern Correctional
Institution, brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Chief Justice Maureen
O’Connor of the Ohio Supreme Court.

Having conducted an initial screen of the Complaint, the

Court concludes this action cannot proceed.
I.

LEGAL STANDARD
Because Plaintiff seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

governmental entity, this Court must conduct an initial screen of the Complaint (Doc. 1-1).
U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

28

The Court must dismiss the Complaint, or any portion of the Complaint, if it

determines that the Complaint or claim is frivolous or 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.
28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A(b); see Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991)
(“[T]he allegations of a complaint drafted by a pro se litigant are held to less stringent standards
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers....”); Thompson v. Kentucky, 812 F.2d 1408, No.

86-5765, 1987 WL 36634, at *1 (6th Cir. 1987) (“Although pro se complaints are to be construed
liberally, they still must set forth a cognizable federal claim.” (citation omitted)).

In order to

survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 570 (2007)).
II.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff filed the Complaint on March 29, 2017, alleging that Chief Justice O’Connor

violated his civil rights by declining to accept jurisdiction of his appeal.

(Doc. 1 at 2–3).

However, judicial immunity shields judges, and other public officers, “from undue interference
with their duties and from potentially disabling threats of liability.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457
U.S. 800, 806 (1982).

“Like other forms of official immunity, judicial immunity is an immunity

from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of damages.”
(1991).

Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11

Judicial immunity is overcome only if the actions taken were not in the judge’s judicial

capacity and if the actions taken were in absence of all jurisdiction.

Id. at 11–12.

Because

those circumstances do not apply here, Chief Justice O’Connor is immune from Plaintiff’s claim.
III.

CONCLUSION
Having performed an initial screen, for the reasons set forth above, it is recommended that

Plaintiff’s Complaint be DISMISSED.

(Doc.1).

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

2

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).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: March 31, 2017

/s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3