Opinion
CASE NO. 4:16-cv-2959
03-14-2017
MICHELLE ANN CLARK, PLAINTIFF, v. MAHONING COUNTY JAIL, DEFENDANT.
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Michelle Clark has filed this in forma pauperis civil rights action against the Mahoning County Jail, stating she "would like to be awarded for being stripped of her civil rights." (ECF No. 1 at 5.) The only allegations she sets forth in her complaint, however, are:
I was mistreated while incarcerated at Mahon[ing] County Jail. I was starved for days, forced to eat out of the garbage, and my medication was withheld.(Id. at 3.)
Although the standard of review for pro se pleadings is liberal, Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir. 2011), principles requiring generous construction of pro se pleadings are not without limits. Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1277 (4th Cir. 1985). Pro se plaintiffs must still meet basic pleading requirements and courts are not required to conjure allegations on their behalf. See Erwin v. Edwards, 22 F. App'x 579, 580 (6th Cir. 2001). Federal district courts are expressly required, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), to screen all in forma pauperis actions and dismiss before service any such action that the court determines is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). In order to avoid a dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must set forth "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. (holding that the dismissal standard articulated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) governs dismissals for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)). The "allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
The Court finds this action must be dismissed pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B). Even liberally construed, plaintiff's generalized allegations are simply insufficient to suggest she might have a plausible federal civil rights claim.
First, her allegations are insufficient to raise a right to relief above a speculative level. See Lillard v. Shelby Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 76 F.3d 716, 726 (6th Cir. 1996) (a court is not required to accept summary allegations or unwarranted conclusions in determining whether a complaint states a claim for relief).
Second, the only defendant named in the case, the Mahoning County Jail, is not a legal entity capable of being sued for purposes of a civil rights action, and there are no allegations suggesting the wrongful conduct she alleges was caused by an official policy or custom of Mahoning County itself. See Jackson v. Mowry, No. 1:12 CV 3083, 2013 WL 526916, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 11, 2013) (dismissing civil rights claim against county jail); Boggs v. Miami Cnty. Jail, No. 3:11 CV 00122, 2011 WL 3813079, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 9, 2011) (a county jail "is merely an administrative vehicle" by which a county operates and therefore "lacks the capacity to be sued"), report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:11 CV 00122, 2011 WL 3813033 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 29, 2011).
Conclusion
Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted, but for the reasons stated above, her action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court further certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 14, 2017
/s/ _________
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE