Williams v. Mohr
| Decision Date | 21 August 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:17-cv-01000 |
| Parties | DAVID A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. GARY C. MOHR, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
OPINION & ORDER
This is a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Plaintiff David A. Williams, an inmate at the Correctional Reception Center in Orient, Ohio, against Defendant Gary C. Mohr, Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections ("ODRC"), in both his official and individual capacities. This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's November 22, 2017 Report and Recommendation (R&R), which granted Mr. Williams' motion to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), recommended that Mr. Williams' Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 2) be denied, and recommended that the Complaint (ECF No. 3) be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (ECF No. 4). Upon independent review by the Court, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and DISMISSES the case.
On November 15, 2017, Mr. Williams filed his Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (ECF No. 3). The Complaint requests declaratory, monetary, and injunctive relief, as well as a jury trial. (ECF No. 3 at 48-63).
Mr. Williams advances a number of claims, chief of which is that he is being illegally detained following his conviction of kidnapping and felonious assault. (ECF No. 3 at 4). Mr. Williams also appears to argue that the prison grievance procedure available to him is inadequate, at least partly because he has submitted proof of his innocence to Mr. Mohr, yet his incarceration continues. (ECF No. 3 at 4). In addition, Mr. Williams contends that he has suffered irreparable harm to his mental health as a result of Mr. Mohr knowingly allowing his incarceration to continue. (ECF No. 3 at 5-6). Moreover, Mr. Williams contends that Mr. Mohr is attempting to obstruct his and other inmates' abilities to submit grievances because grievances must be submitted on a kiosk computer that is out in the open. His contention is that this arrangement puts pressure on inmates not to file grievances because other inmates and staff can see those using the kiosk. (ECF No. 3 at 9-10). Finally, he contends that he was discriminated against for his "cultural, religious haircut." (ECF No. 3 at 14). He alleges that prison staff threatened put him in solitary confinement if he refused to cut it. (ECF No. 3 at 14).
On November 22, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation granting Mr. Williams' motion to proceed in forma pauperis, denying Mr. Williams' motion for appointment of counsel, and dismissing Mr. Williams' complaint. (ECF No. 4).
On December 4, 2017, Mr. Williams filed his Objection. (ECF No. 12). Therein, Mr. Williams attempted to amend his complaint by adding a Bivens claim and add the United States as a Defendant. (ECF No. 12 at 1). The Objection also mentioned Mr. Williams' request for production of documents, re-stated much of the content of the Complaint, and requested that the Court proceed with this case despite the R&R. (ECF No. 12).
Mr. Williams also filed six motions after he filed his Objection. First, Mr. Williams filed a motion which the Court construes as a motion for a court order to show cause why preliminary and permanent injunctions against Mr. Mohr should not be entered. (ECF No. 6). Second, Mr. Williams filed a Motion to Verify that Court Received Whole Complaint. (ECF No. 9). Third, Williams filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (ECF No. 13). Fourth, Mr. Williams moved for an order compelling Mr. Mohr to respond to Mr. Williams' interrogatories and requests for production of documents. (ECF No. 20). Fifth, Mr. Williams moved for another order to show cause. (ECF No. 27). In this motion, he seeks an injunction prohibiting retaliation against him by preventing Mr. Mohr from replacing staff members Mr. Williams likes with those he does not like, and by preventing Mr. Mohr from transferring Mr. Williams to a different cell or housing unit. Finally, Mr. Williams filed a Motion for Default Judgment for Mr. Mohr's failure to appear or plead. (ECF No. 30).
When objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation are received on a dispositive matter, the assigned district judge "must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). After review, the district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
The Court first addresses whether de novo review is required in this case. Not all objections are entitled to such review; only objections that are specific trigger the requirement. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986) (); Cole v. Yukins, 7 F. App'x 354, 356, (6th Cir. 2001) (); Anderson v. Cty. of Hamilton, 780 F. Supp. 2d 635, 642 (S.D. Ohio 2011) (citation omitted) ("[T]here is no requirement for a district court to review aspects of a magistrate judge's report where a party has failed to make specific objections."). Indeed, "[a] general objection to the entirety of the Magistrate Judge's report has the same effect as would a failure to object." Howard v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). Objections that dispute the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, but fail to specify the findings that the objector believes are in error, are "too summary in nature." Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995). However, "[t]he requirement for specific objections to a magistrate's report is not jurisdictional and a failure to comply may be excused in the interest of justice." Kelly v. Withrow, 25 F.3d 363, 366 (6th Cir. 1994) (citing Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1222-23 (6th Cir. 1987)).
Mr. Williams did not raise any specific objections to the R&R, with the possible exception that he requested that the Court "accept, modify, in whole or in part with these instructions proceeding with the many claims that were not addressed in report and recommendation that still support prayer for relief." (ECF No. 12 at 4) (italics added). Although such language is vague, it can be construed liberally as a specific objection to the Magistrate Judge's finding that Mr. Williams' Complaint should be dismissed. No objection was made to the Magistrate Judge's denial of Mr. Williams' motion for appointment of counsel. The Objection also attempts to amend the Complaint to add the United States as a Defendant if need be. (ECF No. 12 at 1). Accordingly, the Court will review de novo whether the Magistrate Judge properly concluded that Mr. Williams'Complaint should be dismissed, considering the issues as presented in the R&R and any relevant issues not addressed therein. The Court will also evaluate Mr. Williams' attempt to amend his complaint.
The Magistrate Judge properly undertook an initial screening of Mr. Williams' Complaint. Where the plaintiff is a prisoner who "seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity[,]" the Court is required to review the plaintiff's complaint before docketing it, if feasible, or as soon as practicable after docketing. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). On review, the Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if it is "frivolous, malicious, or 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). Similarly, proceedings in forma pauperis require that a court dismiss the case at any time upon determining that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Here, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) applies because Mr. Williams seeks redress from Mr. Mohr in his individual and official capacities. For that reason, the Court must review Mr. Williams' Complaint as soon as practicable to identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint. Likewise, because the Magistrate Judge granted Mr. Williams' request to proceed in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) requires that the Court review Mr. Williams' Complaint and dismiss the case upon determining that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
The Magistrate Judge applied the correct standard in determining that Mr. Williams' Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. See (ECF No. 4 at 1-2). To avoid dismissal, 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. 544, 570 (2007)). "A claim has facial plausibility when the pleaded factual content allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)). "Pro se complaints are to be held 'to less stringent standards than...
To continue reading
Request your trial