Booker v. Ashtabula County Jail, No. 1:2015cv02593 - Document 4 (N.D. Ohio 2016)
Court Description: Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 1/26/16 dismissing the instant case under Section 1915A for the reasons set forth in this order. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. (D,MA)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Booker v. Ashtabula County Jail Doc. 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION QUENTIN L. BOOKER, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. ASHTABULA COUNTY JAIL, Defendant. CASE NO. 1:15 CV 2593 JUDGE JAMES S. GWIN OPINION AND ORDER On December 14, 2015, plaintiff pro se Quentin L. Booker filed this civil rights action against the Ashtabula County Jail, where plaintiff is incarcerated. Plaintiff’s very brief statement of claim in the Complaint alleges he has trouble digesting his food. He further alleges staff at the jail told him they made an appointment for him, but that this was six months ago. For the reasons stated below, this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. A district court is expressly required to dismiss any civil action filed by a prisoner seeking relief from a governmental officer or entity, as soon as possible after docketing, if the court concludes that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if the plaintiff seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. -1- Dockets.Justia.com §1915A; Siller v. Dean, No. 99-5323, 2000 WL 145167 , at *2 (6th Cir. Feb. 1, 2000). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require “detailed factual allegations,” but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. Id. A pleading that offers “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertion devoid of further factual enhancement. Id. It must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. 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. Id. The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Id. Where a complaint pleads facts that are “merely consistent with” a defendant's liability, it “stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.’ ” Id. Even liberally construed, the Complaint does not contain allegations reasonably suggesting plaintiff might have a valid claim. See, Lillard v. Shelby County Bd. of Educ,, 76 F.3d 716 (6th Cir. 1996)(court not required to accept summary allegations or unwarranted legal conclusions in determining whether complaint states a claim for relief). Further, government entities “cannot be held liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory." Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). Monell requires that to establish such liability under § 1983, “a plaintiff must allege an unconstitutional action that implements or executes a policy -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
