Rice v. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, No. 1:2016cv00004 - Document 3 (N.D. Ohio 2016)

Court Description: Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 2/26/16 setting forth the grounds for dismissal of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A. (Related Doc. 1 ) (D,MA) Modified text to correct typographical error on 2/26/2016 (D,MA).

Download PDF
Rice v. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ------------------------------------------------------: JOENELL L. RICE, : : Plaintiff, : : vs. : : UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, : : Defendant. : : ------------------------------------------------------- Doc. 3 CASE NO. 1:16 CV 0004 OPINION & ORDER JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: Pro se plaintiff Joenell L. Rice, identifying himself as a federal inmate, has filed this in forma pauperis civil rights action seeking $5 million in damages against the “United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio” (hereinafter, the “United States District Court”). The alleged basis for his complaint is that he was physically assaulted by two police officers in connection with an arrest that occurred on January 8, 2015. Although pleadings filed by pro se litigants are liberally construed and held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), federal district courts are required under 28 U.S.C. §1915A to screen and dismiss before service any action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity that 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 28 U.S.C. §1915A. The plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed under §1915A. The plaintiff has failed to allege any plausible claim against the United States District Court, even to the extent his complaint can be liberally construed as asserting constitutional claims of excessive force based Dockets.Justia.com on the conduct of police officers. Because the United States District Court is a federal entity, the plaintiff cannot assert a claim for damages against it under 42 U.S.C. §1983, which prohibits constitutional violations by defendants who act under color of state law. See 42 U.S.C. §1983. In addition, the plaintiff cannot assert a claim for damages against the United States District Court under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which recognized a limited cause of action for damages against federal government officials alleged to have violated a citizen’s constitutional rights. The Supreme Court has made clear that the purpose of Bivens is to deter individual federal officials, not federal agencies or entities, from committing constitutional violations. Therefore, damage claims under Bivens may only be asserted against individual federal officials and not federal entities, including the United States and its agencies. See Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 70 (2001). In sum, the plaintiff has failed to allege any plausible claim on which relief may be granted against the only defendant the plaintiff names in this case; accordingly, this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A.1 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: February 26, 2016 s/ James S. Gwin JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 If the plaintiff wishes to bring a damages claim against any other individual or entity, he must identify such defendant and file a new lawsuit. -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.