Johnson v. Chambers-Smith
| Decision Date | 17 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | 2:22-cv-4179 |
| Parties | ALFRED A. JOHNSON SR., Plaintiff, v. ODRC ANNETTE CHAMBERS-SMITH, DIR., ET AL., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Alfred A. Johnson Sr. has filed a civil rights Complaint with this Court. (Doc. 14). Plaintiff is a state prisoner and is proceeding in this action without the assistance of counsel. Among other things, he alleges that Defendants should have mailed his legal documents to a state court clerk despite his lack of funds to pay for postage. He also alleges that prison staff improperly removed his mother from his visiting list and that these two actions were taken in an effort to thwart his state habeas corpus case and prevent him from obtaining his freedom. (Doc. 14, PageID 111-12). Plaintiff offers some other claims in three motions to amend his Complaint. (Doc 7, 9, 12).
The matter is currently before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff's motions to amend, and for an initial screening of his Complaint as required by law. For the reasons that follow, the undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the Court DENY Plaintiff's Second and Third Motions to Amend the Complaint, SEVER the unrelated claims and DISMISS them without prejudice, DISMISS the Complaint in its entirety, and RECOMMEND that this case be treated as a “strike” under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The Undersigned will GRANT Plaintiff's First Motion to Amend. (Doc. 7).
Because Plaintiff is a prisoner seeking “redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity,” and is proceeding in forma pauperis (see Doc. 13), the Court is required to conduct an initial screening of his Complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and 28 U.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) and 1915(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 also Lawler 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) (quoting Neitzke, 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) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). However, a complaint that consists of “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” is insufficient. Id. (quoting Twombly, 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) (). 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) (quoting Mezibov 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.
Plaintiff Johnson was, at the time he submitted his Complaint, incarcerated at Belmont Correctional Institution (BECI). (Doc. 10, PageID 84). He maintains that he is wrongfully incarcerated and innocent of the crime for which he is incarcerated. (Complaint,[1] PageID 111). He describes himself as a black inmate, while Defendants are white. (Id.).
Plaintiff names nine or ten defendants in his Complaint, all of whom appear to be affiliated with the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) and/or BECI. (Id., PageID 110). Specifically, he names Annette Chambers-Smith, ODRC Director; David Gray, BECI Warden; C. Scott, DWO (likely, Deputy Warden of Operations[2]); R. Moore, of the Cashier's Office; Patrick Haley,[3] Institutional Inspector; Lt. D. Henry, Mailroom Supervisor; D. Taylor, UMA (likely, Unit Management Administrator[4]); Cpt. Rizzo (position unknown); and R. Matesick (position unknown). He may also have intended to name the ODRC itself as a Defendant; this Report and Recommendations will proceed as if he had expressly done so. (See id.).
Plaintiff's claims, which were drafted without the benefit of counsel, are not entirely clear. This fact will not be held against Plaintiff. To the contrary, the Court will construe his filings liberally and in his favor as appropriate in this context. See Section I, above.
According to the Complaint, Plaintiff was transferred from North Central Correctional Institution to BECI, where he arrived on October 19, 2022. (Complaint, PageID 111-12). On November 3, 2022, he put legal mail addressed to the Clerk of Court of Marion County, Ohio, in the institution's mailbox. (Id., PageID 110, 121). The mail appears to have included a filing intended for a habeas corpus appeal in Ohio's Third Appellate District Court. Plaintiff prepared a “Personal A/C Withdrawal Check Out-Slip” for postage to mail the envelope to the clerk. (Id., PageID 111, 121).
Plaintiff's mail was not sent on November 3. Instead, it was held by prison officials for a period of time and was not returned to him. (Id., PageID 112). Plaintiff believes that, due to his indigency, the prison should have sent out his mail despite his lack of funds to cover the postage. He explains:
When I came to this institution, we had orientation, while there, this Institutional Inspector did explain that when your balance is at 0.00 one can have mail sent due to indigency....I have a balance of 0.00 and it was explained to me that if at 0.00 legal mail addressed to the clerk will be processed.[5]
(Id., PageID 110). Instead, Plaintiff was told that his mail was “held due to insufficient funds” for postage. (Id., PageID 111). He also suggests that prison staff should have allowed him to use a process called a “lock” to borrow the funds for postage. (Id., PageID 112).[6]
Plaintiff submitted his Complaint to this Court on November 21, 2022, approximately two and one-half weeks after he first tried to mail the envelope.[7] (Id., PageID 113). It appears that Plaintiff's mail was eventually sent from BECI to the state court clerk on November 22, 2022. (Doc. 10, PageID 97).
Intertwined with Plaintiff's allegation about BECI's failure to process and mail his November 3 envelope is an allegation that someone removed his mother from his BECI visiting list. ( )). Plaintiff notes that removal of his mother-his usual source of funds-from his visiting list also prevented her from depositing money for him. (Complaint, PageID 111-12). Plaintiff submits the removal was intentional, as it happened just when he went to mail his habeas corpus filing. (Id., PageID 111). He argues that this was done to delay or prevent his habeas filing and stop him from obtaining his liberty. (Id., PageID 111-12). Together, these two allegations appear to underlie Plaintiff's claims of conspiracy, discrimination, retaliation, racial profiling and targeting, and violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, among other claims.
A third, unrelated issue is raised in Plaintiff's Complaint. He says:
Cpt. Rizzo, did fail to perform a full investigation on an inmate name ‘Wilborne' that was in Bed A#23 Unit 4. This inmate did have a PREA[9] on him for sexual reason while I was sleeping. This inmate is white, and is [believed] to have a sexual nature case. This Cpt. Rizzo, appears to be white also, I am a black inmate. This was on 11-10-22, this same inmate was...
To continue reading
Request your trial