UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

MBIYA MITCHEM, Case No. 1:18-cv-426

Plaintiff,

Barrett, J.

vs. Bowman, M.J.

SHERIFF, BUTLER REPORT AND

COUNTY, OH, et al., RECOMMENDATION

Defendants.

Plaintiff, an inmate currently at the United States Penitentiary Canaan and former 

inmate at the Butler County, Ohio jail, brings this civil rights action against defendants the 

Butler County, Ohio Sheriff and C/O Rucker. By separate Order, plaintiff has been granted 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This matter is before the 

Court for a sua sponte review of the complaint to determine whether the complaint, or any 

portion of it, should be dismissed because it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 

such relief. See Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 § 804, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); § 805, 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

In enacting the original in forma pauperis statute, Congress recognized that a “litigant 

whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an 

economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.” Denton v. 

Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989)). To 

prevent such abusive litigation, Congress has authorized federal courts to dismiss an in forma 

pauperis complaint if they are satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious. Id.; see also 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and 1915A(b)(1). A complaint may be dismissed as frivolous when 

the plaintiff cannot make any claim with a rational or arguable basis in fact or law. Neitzke v. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00426-MRB-SKB Doc #: 5 Filed: 07/24/18 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: 44
2

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328-29 (1989); see also Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196, 1198 (6th 

Cir. 1990). An action has no arguable legal basis when the defendant is immune from suit or 

when plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist. Neitzke, 490 

U.S. at 327. An action has no arguable factual basis when the allegations are delusional or rise to 

the level of the irrational or “wholly incredible.” Denton, 504 U.S. at 32; Lawler, 898 F.2d at 

1199. The Court need not accept as true factual allegations that are “fantastic or delusional” in 

reviewing a complaint for frivolousness. Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 471 (6th Cir. 2010) 

(quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328). 

Congress also has authorized the sua sponte dismissal of complaints that fail to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1). A 

complaint filed by a pro se plaintiff must be “liberally construed” and “held to less stringent 

standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 

(2007) (per curiam) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). By the same token, 

however, the complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also Hill, 630 F.3d at 

470-71 (“dismissal standard articulated in Iqbal and Twombly governs dismissals for failure to 

state a claim” under §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)).

“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the 

court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The Court must accept all wellpleaded factual allegations as true, but need not “accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a 

Case: 1:18-cv-00426-MRB-SKB Doc #: 5 Filed: 07/24/18 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: 45
3

factual allegation.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 

(1986)). Although a complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” it must provide 

“more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). A pleading that offers “labels and conclusions” or “a 

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 

555. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders “naked assertion[s]” devoid of “further factual 

enhancement.” Id. at 557. The complaint must “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . 

claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93 (citations omitted).

In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that on August 27, 2017, defendant C/O Rucker closed 

plaintiff’s cell door on his right finger while he was located at the Butler County Jail, violating 

his rights under the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 1 at PageID 4, 6). In support of his allegation, 

plaintiff relies on Rucker’s description of the incident in an August 27, 2017 Jail Incident Report: 

On the above date and location inmate Mitchem, Mbiya JCA# 178494 in cell D-19. 

During rec inmate Mitchem ask if I CO, Rucker 2282 could shut his door so he 

could use the restroom. Due to the intercom button not working. After 15 minutes 

past I saw inmate Mitchem waiving in the cell door window. I CO, Rucker open 

the cell door via control panel which then door opened faster then normal and the 

inmates hand was pinched between the door and wall. Inmate Mitchem’s right hand 

was bleeding from the ring finger. I CO, Rucker called for medic over the radio 

and requested medics to come to D-pod. Medics Huck 2214 and Medic 

Kiinsworthy responded to D-pod. Medic informed that the inmate will need 

stitches and notified SGT, Grathwal,. The inmate was taken to the hospital. 

(Id. at PageID 13). Plaintiff’s complaint and exhibits detail the injuries plaintiff sustained from 

the incident. 

As relief, plaintiff seeks monetary damages. (Id. at PageID 5). 

Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to dismissal at the screening stage. Under the Eighth 

Amendment, “a prisoner alleging excessive force must demonstrate that defendant[s] acted 

Case: 1:18-cv-00426-MRB-SKB Doc #: 5 Filed: 07/24/18 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: 46
4

‘maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.’” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 528 (2002) (citing 

Hudson v. McMilliam, 503 U.S. 1 (1992)). An excessive force claim also requires plaintiff to 

demonstrate that the defendants actions were “purposeful or knowing conduct.” Id. In this case, 

plaintiff does not make any factual allegations that would enable the Court to plausibly conclude 

that defendants purposefully caused his injuries. According to plaintiff, defendant Rucker 

attempted to open his cell door upon seeing plaintiff waive from his cell. Rucker opened the 

door from the control panel, the door opened quicker than normal, and plaintiff’s finger was 

pinched, causing him injuries. Plaintiff’s allegations do not suggest that Rucker intended to 

cause him injury, much less that his behavior was malicious or sadistic. Accordingly, plaintiff 

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and the complaint should be dismissed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1).

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:

1. The plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1).

2. The Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that for the foregoing reasons an 

appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in good faith 

and therefore deny plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 

114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997).

 s/ Stephanie K. Bowman 

Stephanie K. Bowman 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case: 1:18-cv-00426-MRB-SKB Doc #: 5 Filed: 07/24/18 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: 47
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

MBIYA MITCHEM, Case No. 1:18-cv-426

Plaintiff,

Barrett, J.

vs. Bowman, M.J.

SHERIFF, BUTLER 

COUNTY, OH, et al.,

Defendants.

NOTICE

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written 

objections to this Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after 

being served with a copy thereof. That period may be extended further by the Court on timely 

motion by either side for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the portion(s) of the 

R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the 

objections. A party shall respond to an opponent’s objections within FOURTEEN DAYS after 

being served with a copy of those objections. Failure to make objections in accordance with this 

procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States 

v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

Case: 1:18-cv-00426-MRB-SKB Doc #: 5 Filed: 07/24/18 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: 48