Vonnjordsson v. Bowen, No. 4:2017cv02297 - Document 6 (N.D. Ohio 2017)

Court Description: Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons set forth herein, it is evident that this lawsuit was not intended to be filed by the person identified as Plaintiff. Accordingly, this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 12/13/2017. (JLG)

Download PDF
Vonnjordsson v. Bowen Doc. 6 PEARSON, J. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION KREIGHAMMER VONNJORDSSON, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN RICHARD BOWEN, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 4:17CV2297 JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER This civil rights action was purportedly filed by pro se Plaintiff Kreighammer Vonnjordsson, an inmate at the Ohio State Penitentiary, on October 30, 2017. ECF No. 1. Because the Complaint contained outlandish allegations, Defendant, Warden Richard Bowen of Ohio State Penitentiary, was ordered to file a response concerning the authenticity of an “Informal Complaint Resolution” filed with the lawsuit. See ECF Nos.1 and 2. On November 17, 2017, Defendant filed an Affidavit in Response to the Court’s Order, stating that he never received the Informal Complaint Resolution, and that “it [did] not contain a large red stamp (with a date) that [his] secretary . . . places on documents submitted to [him] on a daily basis.” ECF No. 5 at PageID#: 14–15. Attached to the Affidavit is a note from Plaintiff stating he did not write the Informal Complaint Resolution and had nothing to do with the lawsuit sent to the Court on October 30, 2017 with his name on it. ECF No. 5-2. Furthermore, on December Dockets.Justia.com (4:17CV2297) 1, 2017, the Court also received a letter from Plaintiff confirming his complete lack of involvement in this matter. Based on the foregoing, it is evident that this lawsuit was not intended to be filed by the person identified as Plaintiff. Accordingly, this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The Court 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. December 13, 2017 Date /s/ Benita Y. Pearson Benita Y. Pearson United States District Judge 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.