Amison v. Canton Ohio Police Department et al, No. 5:2014cv00987 - Document 6 (N.D. Ohio 2014)
Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order: Defendants Canton Police Department and Officer Shackle are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e). The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from their dismissal could n ot be taken in good faith. The Clerk's Office is directed to forward the appropriate documents to the U.S. Marshal for service of process on Officer Legg. A copy of this order shall be included with the documents to be served on him. Judge Sara Lioi on 10/30/2014. (P,J)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Amison v. Canton Ohio Police Department et al Doc. 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION STEVEN AMISON, PLAINTIFF, vs. CANTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al, DEFENDANTS. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 5:14cv987 JUDGE SARA LIOI OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff pro se Steven Amison brings this in forma pauperis 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Defendants Canton Police Department and Canton Police Officers Legg and Shackle. Plaintiff alleges Officer Legg intentionally struck him with a police vehicle and then beat him. Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365, 102 S.Ct. 700, 70 L.Ed.2d 551 (1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (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, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990); Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996). While Plaintiff’s claims against Officer Legg may have arguable merit, the same cannot be said regarding his claims against the other two Defendants. The Canton Police Department is not an entity capable of being sued. Matthews v. Jones, 35 F.3d 1046, 1049 (6th Dockets.Justia.com Cir. 1994). Further, there are no allegations connecting Officer Shackle to the acts of which Plaintiff complains. Therefore, the Canton Police Department and Officer Shackle are not proper parties to this action. Based on the foregoing, Defendants Canton Police Department and Officer Shackle are 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 their dismissal could not be taken in good faith. The Clerk's Office is directed to forward the appropriate documents to the U.S. Marshal for service of process on Officer Legg. A copy of this order shall be included with the documents to be served on him. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 30, 2014 HONORABLE SARA LIOI 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.
