Edmonds v. Troyan et al, No. 3:2017cv00752 - Document 2 (N.D. Ohio 2017)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order: this action is dismissed under section 1915A. 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 Jeffrey J. Helmick on 12/18/2017. (S,AL)

Download PDF
Edmonds v. Troyan et al Doc. 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION Mario L. Edmonds, Case No. 3:17-cv-752 Plaintiff v. MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER John Coleman, et al., Defendants On April 10, 2017, plaintiff pro se Mario L. Edmonds, an inmate at the Richland Correctional Institution, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the following defendants: Gregory M. Troyan, John D. Sutula, Pat Lavelle, Gary Mohr, Dave Marquis, John Cline, John Olugolinski, Scott Moran, and Rick Ferrara. The complaint, which is barely legible, does not set forth any particular factual allegations against defendants, but instead consists entirely of conclusory legal assertions that plaintiff’s convictions were the product of a conspiracy, and that the conditions of his confinement violate his constitutional rights. 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 Dockets.Justia.com 2 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. § 1915A; Siller v. Dean, No. 99-5323, 2000 WL 145167 , at *2 (6th Cir. Feb. 1, 2000). Principles requiring generous construction of pro se pleadings are not without limits. Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1277 (4th Cir. 1985). A complaint must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements of some viable legal theory to satisfy federal notice pleading requirements. See Schied v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434, 437 (6th Cir. 1988). District courts are not required to conjure up questions never squarely presented to them or to construct full blown claims from sentence fragments. Beaudette, 775 F.2d at 1278. To do so would "require ...[the courts] to explore exhaustively all potential claims of a pro se plaintiff, ... [and] would...transform the district court from its legitimate advisory role to the improper role of an advocate seeking out the strongest arguments and most successful strategies for a party." Id. Even liberally construed, the complaint does not contain allegations reasonably suggesting plaintiff might have a valid federal claim. See, Lillard v. Shelby County Bd. of Educ,, 76 F.3d 716 (6th Cir. 1996)(court not required to accept summary allegations or unwarranted legal conclusions in determining whether complaint states a claim for relief). Further, to the extent he seeks to challenge "the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, ... his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus." Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 501 (1973). Finally, absent allegations that criminal proceedings terminated in plaintiff's favor or that a conviction stemming from the asserted violation of his rights was reversed, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, he may not recover damages for his claim. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). Accordingly, this action is dismissed under section 1915A. The court certifies, pursuant to 28 3 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. So ordered. s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick United States District Judge

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.