Mandela v. State of Ohio et al, No. 1:2009cv00964 - Document 3 (N.D. Ohio 2009)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order: This action is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Further, 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. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 6/17/09. (LC,S)

Download PDF
Mandela v. State of Ohio et al Doc. 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO SHA-KIM MANDELA, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. STATE OF OHIO, et al., Defendants. Case No. 1:09 CV 964 JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER On April 27, 2009, plaintiff pro se Sha-Kim Mandela, an inmate at the Marion Correctional Institution, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the State of Ohio and Cuyahoga County. The complaint alleges that Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Lillian Green made a clerical error in a journal entry, causing it to appear plaintiff had been sentenced to 18 months time served, instead of 8 months time served. error had significant negative It is further alleged that this consequences subsequent parole and security status. for plaintiff’s 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. Dockets.Justia.com §1915A; Siller v. Dean, No. 99-5323, 2000 WL 145167 , at *2 (6th Cir. Feb. 1, 2000). As a threshold matter, states are not "persons" subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989). Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Further, it is well established that section 1983 will not support a claim based upon a theory of respondeat superior alone. 325 (1981). Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, Governmental entities and supervising officers may be deemed liable for the unconstitutional actions of their agents only when those actions are the result of official policies or customs. Monell v. Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). There are no allegations reasonably suggesting that defendants established policies or customs resulting in the violation of plaintiff's constitutional rights. Salehpour v. University of Tennessee, 159 F.3d 199, 206 (1998)(liability must be based on more than right to control employees); Leach v. Shelby County Sheriff, 891 F.2d 1241, 1246 (6th Cir. 1989) (supervisory liability under § 1983 must be based on active unconstitutional behavior). Accordingly, this action is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Further, 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. /s/ Patricia A. Gaughan PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: 6/17/09 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.