Culberson v. Franklin Cnty. Corr.

• Decision Date: 13 December 2022
• Docket Number: 2:22-cv-3671
• Citation: Culberson v. Franklin Cnty. Corr., 2:22-cv-3671 (S.D. Ohio Dec 13, 2022)
• Parties: BRYANT JA JUAN LEE CULBERSON, Plaintiff, v. FRANKLIN COUNTY CORRECTION, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

BRYANT JA JUAN LEE CULBERSON, Plaintiff, v. FRANKLIN COUNTY CORRECTION, et al., Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-3671

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division, Columbus

December 13, 2022

Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

PlaintiffBryant Ja JuanLee Culberson, has filed a pro se Complaint with this Court.(ECF No. 1-1.)The Complaint raises various concerns about conditions at the Franklin County Corrections Center where Culberson was previously in custody.(Id., PageID 9, 13;seeNotice of New Address, ECF No. 5.)

The matter is before the undersigned Magistrate Judge to conduct an initial screening of the Complaint.For the reasons that follow, the Undersigned RECOMMENDS that the CourtDISMISS the Complaint in its entirety under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)and28U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

I.Initial Screening Standard

Because Culberson was a prisoner seeking “redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity” when he filed his Complaint, and because he has been permitted to proceed in forma pauperis(seeECF No. 7), the Court is required to screen his Complaint.28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)and28U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).The Court must dismiss the Complaint, or any portion of it, that 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.28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)and1915(e)(2).

A complaint may be dismissed as frivolous when the plaintiff cannot make any claim with a rational or arguable basis in fact or law.Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328-29(1989);see alsoLawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196, 1198(6th Cir.1990).An action has no arguable legal basis when the defendant is immune from suit or when plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist.Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.An action has no arguable factual basis when the allegations are delusional or rise to the level of the irrational or “wholly incredible.”Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32(1992);Lawler, 898 F.2d at 1199.The Court need not accept as true factual allegations that are “fantastic or delusional” in reviewing a complaint for frivolousness.Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 471(6th Cir.2010)(quotingNeitzke, 490 U.S. at 328).

A complaint must also be dismissed if it fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).To state a claim for relief, a complaint must set forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).The Court must construe the complaint in plaintiff's favor, accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true, and evaluate whether the complaint contains “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570(2007).

“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678(2009)(citingTwombly, 550 U.S. at 556).However, a Placomplaint that consists of “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” is insufficient.Id.(quotingTwombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

In the interest of justice, this Court is also required to construe a pro se complaint liberally and to hold it “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94(2007)(quotingEstelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106(1976) and citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(f)[now (e)]).Even with such a liberal construction, a pro se complaint must still adhere to the “basic pleading essentials.”Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594(6th Cir.1989).Specifically, a pro se “complaint ‘must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements' to recover under some viable legal theory.”Barhite v. Caruso, 377 Fed.Appx. 508, 510(6th Cir.2010)(quotingMezibov v. Allen, 411 F.3d 712, 716(6th Cir.2005)).“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.”Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

II.Parties and Claims

Plaintiff Culberson appeared to be, when he filed this case, a pretrial detainee at the Franklin County Corrections Center(FCCC).He has since been released from custody.^[1]

Culberson identifies eight defendants: Franklin County SheriffDallas Baldwin, Major Mike Turner, Tonja Phillips, Syble Sayon, Nalea Whiting-Cobb, Tresalyn Butler, Carolyn Pierce, and Jason Poindexter.(ECF No. 1-1, PageID 9, 12.)It is implied that these individuals are all affiliated with FCCC.In addition, Culberson names some John Does and Jane Does as defendants.(Id.)Culberson identifies these Defendants as the unknown staff members that run certain programs at FCCC, such as AA and NA(presumably, Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous).^[2](ECF No. 1-1, PageID 9, 12.)Finally, Culberson may have named “Franklin County Correction” as a defendant.(SeeECF No. 1-1, PageID 9.)

The Complaint's Statement of Claim consists of a single page, but it lists several issues with Culberson's and other inmates' experiences at FCCC.(SeeECF No. 1-1, PageID 13.)Culberson frames these issues as “problems,” rather than constitutional deprivations.(SeeECF No. 1-1, PageID 11.)Culberson's main concern appears to be that no rehabilitative or educational programs were available to FCCC inmates designated as “P.C.” and that he was unable to go to AA, NA, church, or recreation-to make himself a better person-while in custody.(ECF No. 1-1, PageID 13.)He also alleges that: inmate meals did not contain 2,000 or 2,800 calories; FCCC staff denied all “call cards” for programs, recreation, and food; the commissary charged prices that were way over cost; he was beat up by staff members; and he was denied medical care.(Id.)Culberson seeks monetary damages of “one million per whole” and “one million each person.”(ECF No. 1-1, PageID 14.)

Although it does not specify, the Undersigned reads the Complaint as seeking to raise claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.This statute allows a plaintiff to seek redress from state actors for “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution.”Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 643(2004).To state a cause of action under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege: “(1) a deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States (2) caused by a person acting under color of state law.”Hunt v. Sycamore Cmty. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 542 F.3d 529, 534(6th Cir.2008)(citation omitted).Although Culberson does not identify any constitutional of federal law provisions, the Undersigned has endeavored to classify his claims as best appropriate.SeeBarhite, 377 Fed.Appx. at 511(citingUnited States v. McDonald, 326 Fed.Appx. 880, 882(6th Cir.2009))(“courts may elect to recharacterize pro se filings for the benefit of the pleader”).

III.Discussion

The Undersigned concludes that, even if the pro se Complaint is read liberally, Culberson has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against any of the Defendants.

A.Identified Defendants in their Personal Capacities

First and primarily, the Complaint fails to allege what any particular identified Defendant did that that violated Culberson's rights.A plaintiff suing several defendants must describe in the complaint how each defendant violated his or her rights.“The Sixth Circuit ‘has consistently held that damage claims against government officials arising from alleged violations of constitutional rights must allege . . . facts that demonstrate what eachdefendant did that violated the asserted constitutional right.'”Reid v. City of Detroit, No. 18-13681, 2020 WL 5902597, at *6(E.D. Mich.Oct. 5, 2020)(quotingLanman v. Hinson, 529 F.3d 673, 684(6th Cir.2008))(emphasis in original).“Merely listing names in the caption of the complaint and alleging constitutional violations in the body of the complaint is not enough to sustain recovery under § 1983.”Gilmore v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 92 Fed.Appx. 188, 190(6th Cir.2004)(citingFlagg Bros. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 155-57(1978)).Thus, “[w]here a person is named as a defendant without an allegation of specific conduct, the complaint is subject to dismissal, even under the liberal construction afforded to pro se complaints.”Catanzaro v. Harry, 848 F.Supp.2d 780, 791(W.D. Mich.2012).

Here Culberson does not include allegations of specific wrongful conduct by any of the eight identified Defendants.There is no information to allow the Court to determine that (or how)Defendants Baldwin, Turner, Phillips, Sayon, Whiting-Cobb, Butler, Pierce, or Poindexter each allegedly violated Culberson's rights.In fact, there is no information whatsoever about who most of these defendants are.Although the Undersigned can construe a pro se complaint liberally, the Undersigned cannot attempt to match particular defendants with particular allegations where the plaintiff has failed to do so.Identifying who harmed the plaintiff and how they did so is a “basic pleading essential” required to state a claim.^[3]Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594(6th Cir.1989);see alsoBrown v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 507 Fed.Appx. 543, 547(6th Cir.2012)(courts“are not required to conjure up allegations not pleaded or guess at the nature of an argument.”).The claims against these eight identified Defendants(Baldwin, Turner, Phillips, Sayon, Whiting-Cobb, Butler, Pierce, or Poindexter) in their personal...