Grant v. West

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION VICTOR GORMAN GRANT, Case No. 1:20-cv-080 Plaintiff, Dlott, J. Litkovitz, M.J. vs. MAGISTRATE MELISSA WEST, Defendant. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff, a resident of Cincinnati, Ohio, brings this action against Magistrate Melissa West of the Hamilton County, Ohio Municipal Court. (See Doc. 1, Complaint). By separate Order, plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 . This matter is before the Court for a sua sponte review of the complaint to determine whether the complaint, or any portion of it, should be dismissed because it 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. See Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 § 804, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B). In enacting the original in forma pauperis statute, Congress recognized that a “litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989)). To prevent such abusive litigation, Congress has authorized federal courts to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint if they are satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious. Jd.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(i). 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, 490 at 328-29; 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, 504 U.S. at 32 ; 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 ). Congress also has authorized the sua sponte dismissal of complaints that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii). A complaint filed by a pro se plaintiff must be “liberally construed” and “held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). By the same token, however, the 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 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also Hill, 630 F.3d at 470-71 (“dismissal standard articulated in Jgbal and Twombly governs dismissals for failure to state a claim” under §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). “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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556 ). The Court must accept all wellpleaded factual allegations as true, but need not “accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). Although a complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” it must provide “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Igbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 ). A pleading that offers “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 . Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders “naked assertion[s]” devoid of “further factual enhancement.” Jd. at 557. The complaint must “give the defendant fair notice of what the... . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93 (citations omitted). Plaintiff's pro se complaint alleges the following: 1. Judicial bias arguing in favor of Apple Computer as a[n] attorney. 2. Allowing the unauthorized practice of law in court alleging that the Supreme Court rule allows this. 3. Corroborating false and misleading evidence upon the court. 4. Perjury misrepresenting facts on official company document lying as to the content. 5. Discrimination asking the defendant’s level of education insinuating that I was less educated than the defendant. 6. When I asked if she was violating my civil rights she did not answer. When I notified her of a lawsuit she encouraged me to do so. (Doe. 1, Complaint PAGEID#: 7). As relief, plaintiff states, “I want the court to punish her by paying me $120,000 in damages or be imprisoned.” (Id. at PAGEID#: 8). Plaintiff's complaint is subject to dismissal as the complaint seeks relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief and fails to state a claim for relief against the named defendant. First, plaintiff's claims against Magistrate West are barred by judicial immunity. Judges are afforded absolute immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for acts they commit while functioning within their judicial capacity. “This immunity extends to officials performing discretionary acts of a judicial nature, including magistrates as well as state judges sued on federal constitutional claims.” Krajicek v. Justin, 991 F. Supp. 875, 876 (E.D. Mich. 1998), aff'd, 178 F.3d 1294 (6th Cir. 1999). “Like other forms of official immunity, judicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of damages.” Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967); Barrett v. Harrington, 130 F.3d 246, 255 (6th Cir. 1997). Judges retain absolute immunity from liability even if they act maliciously or corruptly, as long as they are performing judicial acts and have jurisdiction over the subject matter giving rise to the suit against them. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978). See also Brookings v. Clunk, 389 F.3d 614, 617 (6th Cir. 2004); Stern v. Mascio, 262 F.3d 600, 607 (6th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff has alleged no facts indicating that Magistrate West acted “in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” Stern, 262 F.3d at 607 . Therefore, defendant West is absolutely immune from civil liability in this matter. Second, plaintiff has failed to allege any facts showing how defendant West participated in any alleged violation of his constitutional or statutory rights. Plaintiff's complaint provides no factual content or context from which the Court may reasonably infer that defendant West violated plaintiff's rights. [gbal, 556 U.S. at 678 . Many of plaintiff's allegations amount to legal conclusions that in themselves are insufficient to give defendant West or the Court notice of the factual basis for plaintiff's claims. Although the Court liberally construes pro se litigant filings, dismissal of a complaint is appropriate when it fails to “contain ‘either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory.”” Hendrock v. Gilbert, 68 F. App’x 573, 574 (6th Cir. 2003) (quoting Scheid v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434, 436 (6th Cir. 1988) (emphasis in original) (internal citations omitted)). Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient factual content to enable the Court to conclude that the complaint states a plausible claim for relief against defendant West. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 . The Court is unable to discern from plaintiff s conclusory assertions what defendant West specifically did, or failed to do, that caused his injury and violated his rights under federal law. The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B). IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT: 1. Plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED. 2. The Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a) that for the foregoing reasons an appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in good faith and therefore deny plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Plaintiff remains free to apply to proceed in forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals. See Callihan v. Schneider, 178 F.3d 800, 803 (6th Cir. 1999), overruling in part Floyd v. United States Postal Serv., 105 F.3d 274, 277 (6th Cir. 1997). Date: aladne Ee we hear Karen L. Litkovitz, Magistrate Ju United States District Court UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION VICTOR GORMAN GRANT, Case No. 1:20-cv-080 Plaintiff, Dlott, J. Litkovitz, M.J. Vs. MAGISTRATE MELISSA WEST, Defendant. NOTICE Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to this Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. That period may be extended further by the Court on timely motion by either side for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the portion(s) of the R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. A party shall respond to an opponent’s objections within FOURTEEN DAYS after being served with a copy of those objections. Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas vy. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981),