Martin v. Wilson et al

Filing 7

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, OVERRULING Plaintiff's Objection. This case is DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Algenon L. Marbley on 6/22/2018. (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 E. MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROGER WILSON, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No: 2:18-cv-463
JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY
Magistrate Judge Vascura

OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Objection (ECF No. 4) to the Magistrate
Judge’s May 15, 2018 Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 3), recommending that the Court
dismiss this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Upon independent review, and for
the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Objection is hereby OVERRULED, and the Court
ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. This case is dismissed.
I.

BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background

Plaintiff William Martin is a state inmate.

(ECF No. 1).

Defendants are various

individuals associated with the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction and Madison
Correctional Institution. (Id.). Plaintiff’s claim is comprised of two issues.
First, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Alexander disposed of Plaintiff’s property,
declaring it to be trash. (Id. at 7). Neither Defendant Alexander nor any other Defendant gave an
explanation as to why Plaintiff’s property was designated as trash. (Id.). In response, Plaintiff
filed three Informal Complaint Resolutions (ICRs) to the Deputy Warden of Operations,
Defendant Heard, which Plaintiff alleges went unaddressed. Plaintiff subsequently filed an ICR

with Defendant Brown, and later a Theft and Loss (T+L) Report. Plaintiff then attempted to file
a grievance form but was barred from doing so due to a mandated time limit, which Plaintiff
contends was unconstitutional due to the principle of equitable tolling. (Id. at 7-8). Plaintiff
attempted to file a grievance with Defendant Bratton, the Assistant Chief Inspector, but
Defendant Bratton’s decision to “refuse to resolve the grievance” was “frivolous.” (Id. at 8-9).
Next, Plaintiff alleges that three fellow inmates stole over $600 worth of Plaintiff’s property.
(Id. at 11). At no time, according to Plaintiff, did relevant Defendants investigate this theft,
despite Plaintiff having reported it via ICRs and grievances. (Id. at 12-13).
B. Procedural History
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis on May 11, 2018. (ECF
No. 1). Plaintiff then filed a Complaint on May 15, 2018, naming 18 defendants and requesting
declaratory judgment, a preliminary and a permanent injunction, compensatory damages,
punitive damages, and court costs and attorney’s fees.1 (ECF No. 2 at 16). Plaintiff brings his
claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, contending that this Court has jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 because of the DRC’s dismantling of post-deprivation remedies and the grievance
procedure.
Magistrate Judge Vascura filed a Report and Recommendation on May 15, 2018,
recommending that the Court dismiss this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to
state a claim on which relief may be granted.

(ECF No. 3 at 1).

The Report and

Recommendation also granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(1) and (2). (ECF No. 3 at 2).
The Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed because
Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted per Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). (ECF
1

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, rendering requests for attorney’s fees moot.

2

No. 3 at 5). Specifically, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff failed to allege sufficiently the
inadequacy of the remedies available under Ohio law, resulting in the failure to state a claim.
(Id.). Further, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff’s discussion of the handling of his
grievances fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted because there is no inherent
constitutional right to an effective grievance procedure. (ECF No. 3 at 7). Thus, the Magistrate
Judge recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). (Id.).
Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 4) on May 23,
2018.

Plaintiff responds to the Report and Recommendation by explaining that in order

sufficiently to state a claim that is plausible on its face, “[t]he only thing the plaintiff is required
to plead and prove is that the state remedies are inadequate.” (ECF No. 4 at 2) (citing Vicory v.
Walton, 721 F.2d 1062, 1065-66 (6th Cir. 1983)). Plaintiff contends that the grievance process is
a post-deprivation remedy that, “makes it unnecessary in many cases to file a claim in either the
Ohio Court of Claims or Court of Common Pleas.” (Id.). Thus, Plaintiff concludes that he has
exhausted and proven inadequate state post-deprivation remedies and has stated a claim.
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to “lower judicial access barriers to the indigent”,
though Congress also recognized that plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis lacked “an
economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive suits.” Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). To counter this possibility, Congress included subsection
(e) as part of the statute. Article 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) provides, in relevant part:
(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the
court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that--

3

*

*

*

(B) the action or appeal
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or . . . .

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii). Thus, § 1915(e) requires sua sponte dismissal of an action if
an action is frivolous or malicious or upon determination that the action fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. Importantly, however, the complaints drafted by pro se
litigants are held to more lenient standards than those drafted by attorneys. Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) stipulates that a pleading stating a claim for relief
must contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). In simpler terms, the pleader must ground his or her claim for relief in
relevant law. If such a claim is not grounded in applicable law, there do not exist grounds for
relief.
III.

ANALYSIS

In Vicory v. Walton, the Sixth Circuit established that the “plaintiff must plead and prove
that state remedies for redressing the wrong are inadequate” in cases involving the deprivation of
property interest. Vicory v. Walton, 72 F.2d 1062, 1065-66 (6th Cir. 1983). Furthermore, the
Sixth Circuit has also held that there does not exist an, “inherent constitutional right to an
effective prison grievance procedure.” LaFlame v. Montgomery County County Sheriff’s Dep’t,
3 F’Appx. 346, 348 (6th Cir. 2001). Thus, allegations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that a jail’s
grievance procedure is inadequate fail to state a legal claim, as effective jail/prison grievance
procedures are not constitutionally guaranteed.

4

In the present case, Plaintiff contends that this Court has jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts the inadequacy of the DRC’s grievance procedure. (EFC
No. 2 at 9). On various occasions, according to the Plaintiff, DRC employees did not pursue,
dismissed, or ignored Plaintiff’s ICRs and grievance reports as to his lost and/or stolen property
(See ECF No. 2). However, per LaFlame, Plaintiff does not possess a legal right to an effective
prison grievance procedure. Thus, alleging the ineffective and inefficacious nature of the DRC’s
grievance procedure does not allege the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Because
effective prison grievance procedures are not constitutional rights, Plaintiff has not met the
standard established in Vicory that requires plaintiffs to demonstrate the inadequacy of state
remedies when alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because a prison’s internal grievance
procedures are not state remedies, demonstrating their inadequacy does not satisfy the Vicory
standard.
Because Plaintiff has not demonstrated the inadequacy of state remedies for this claim
involving the deprivation of property interest, Plaintiff has not satisfied the Vicory standard and
has failed to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), as the claim is not
grounded in any legal interest because prison grievance procedures are not constitutionally
protected rights per LaFlame. Thus, because Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under Federal
Rule 8(a)(2), the case is dismissed per 28 U.S.C. §1915(e).
IV.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Objection is hereby OVERRULED. The Court ADOPTS
the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. This case is DISMISSED.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Algenon L. Marbley
ALGENON L. MARBLEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: June 22, 2018

6