Hill v. Cuyahoga County et al, No. 1:2011cv00874 - Document 9 (N.D. Ohio 2019)

Court Description: Opinion and Order For the reasons stated in the Order, Plaintiff's 8 Motion to give the Cashier Office at Trumbull Correctional Institution Notice that withdrawing double payment's from the monthly balance and or average six month balance is contrary to law is denied. Signed by Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 8/22/2019. (K,K)

Download PDF
Hill v. Cuyahoga County et al Doc. 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION DAVID TYRONE HILL, Plaintiff, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:11-cv-874 Judge Dan Aaron Polster OPINION & ORDER Plaintiff David Tyrone Hill filed this civil rights action on May 3, 2011, claiming that he was assaulted by police officers and Cuyahoga County Jail corrections officers in 2002 and 2004. Doc #: 1. Plaintiff’s case was dismissed on August 11, 2011 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Doc #: 6. On June 5, 2019, almost seven years after this action had been dismissed, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Give the Cashier Office at Trumbull Correctional Institution Notice that Withdrawing Double Payment’s[sic] from the Monthly Balance and or Average Six Month Balance is Contrary to Law. Doc #: 8. As the title of Plaintiff’s Motion suggests, Plaintiff complains that the Trumbull Correctional Institution is withdrawing more from his prison account than lawfully permitted. However, Trumbull Correctional Institution is not a party to this action and this case was dismissed nearly seven years ago. Further, as cited in Plaintiff’s Motion, the U.S. District Court is collecting funds from Plaintiff’s prison account for a different action: 3:09cv-889 Hill v. CRUMP Healthcare Administration, et al. Plaintiff filed two similar motions in that case which were denied by Judge Zouhary because Hill does not allege he made any attempts to exhaust the inmate grievance procedure, a necessary predicate to pursuing a claim in federal court. Dockets.Justia.com Thus, the Court cannot properly consider Plaintiff’s Motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is hereby DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Dan Aaron Polster Aug. 22, 2019_ DAN AARON POLSTER 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.