Huffman v. Dollar Rent A Car, No. 1:2010cv01270 - Document 4 (N.D. Ohio 2010)

Court Description: Memorandum of Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 7/30/10. Plaintiff's request to proceed without payment of fees is granted. As set forth in this memorandum, defendant is a private party and could not have been acting under color of state law. Plaintiff, therefore, has no cause of action against this defendant under Sec. 1983. (Related Docs. 1 , 2 ) (M,G)

Download PDF
Huffman v. Dollar Rent A Car Doc. 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION OREON J. HUFFMAN Plaintiff, v. DOLLAR RENT A CAR Defendant. ) CASE NO. 1:10CV1270 ) ) ) JUDGE JAMES S. GWIN ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OF OPINION ) AND ORDER ) Plaintiff pro se Oreon J. Huffman brings this action under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against defendant Dollar Rental Car. He alleges that, on April 26, 2008, he was driving a car rented from the Defendant when he was stopped for fictitious license plates. A search of the car resulted in a felony conviction. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant is liable for his conviction and punishment because there was a reckless disregard for his compulsory rights. He allegedly would never been arrested if the vehicle had proper plates. Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $5,000,000.00. Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the district court is required to dismiss an action under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e) if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990); Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996). For the reasons stated below, this action is dismissed pursuant to section 1915(e). In Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981), the Supreme Court stated that "the initial inquiry [in a section 1983 action] must focus on whether the two essential elements ... are present: Dockets.Justia.com (1) whether the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) whether this conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States." The person acting under color of law is usually a state or local government official or employee. Doyle v. Schumann, 2008 WL 397588 * 3 (N.D. Ohio, Feb. 11, 2008). A plaintiff does not have a cause of action under § 1983 against a private party no matter how discriminatory or wrongful the party's conduct. Tahfs v. Proctor, 316 F.3d 584, 590 (6th Cir. 2003)(citing American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 50 (1999)). A rental car company is a private party and could not have been acting under color of state law. Therefore, Plaintiff has no cause of action against this Defendant under § 1983. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Request to Proceed Without Payment of Fees is granted. (ECF 2). 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. Dated: July 30, 2010 s/ James S. Gwin JAMES S. GWIN 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.