556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Plaintiff's complaint against “multiple
defendants” does not provide adequate notice to any individual that a claim has been asserted
against them, and the complaint should therefore be dismissed.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:

1. Plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice.

2. The Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 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. Plaintiff remains free to apply to

proceed in forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals. See Callihan v. Schneider, 178 F.3d 800,

803 (6th Cir. 1999), overruling in part Floyd v. United States Postal Serv., 105 F.3d 274, 277

(6th Cir. 1997).

Date: YL27h8 Zhen ee Litaa

Karen L. Litkovitz
United States Magistrate Judge



2015) (Report and Recommendation) (finding county jail is not a “person” that can be sued
under § 1983), adopted, 2015 WL 3852912 (S.D. Ohio June 22, 2015). Therefore, the complaint
against the Hamilton County Justice Center should be dismissed.

Second, plaintiff's complaint against “multiple officers” fails to state a claim for relief
because it fails to give sufficient factual details about the individuals involved or the particular
actions they allegedly took to permit the Court to draw the reasonable inference that such
individuals are liable for the misconduct plaintiff alleges. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. In the caption
of the fill-in-the-blank form complaint plaintiff lists the term “multiple officers” when
identifying the defendants. However, plaintiff does not identify any particular officer by name,
place of employment, or jurisdiction, or provide any other identifying information to give the
potential defendant fair notice of his or her identity or any claims against him or her in an
individual capacity. In the body of the complaint, plaintiff alleges vaguely that “they” beat him,
placed him on a chair, and deprived him of “meals” and “water.” Plaintiff does not allege the
date or the time any alleged beating or other deprivations occurred to indicate whether such
actions occurred within the appropriate two-year statute of limitations that governs § 1983
actions, see Banks v. City of Whitehall, 344 F.3d 550, 553-54 (6th Cir. 2003); he does not allege
the number of individuals allegedly involved in the deprivations or their positions within the jail;
he does not state the type of injuries he allegedly sustained from the “beating” aside from a “cut”
in his arm; and he does not allege any facts from which the Court could conclude that any
particular individual had the subjective intent to violate plaintiff's constitutional rights. Plaintiff
is required to give fair notice of a claim for relief and cite the grounds upon which it rests. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Plaintiff's vague and general allegations amount

to nothing “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Jgbal,


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION
DELFON BLAIR, Case No. 1:18-cv-267
Plaintiff, Dlott, J.

Litkovitz, M.J.
vs.

HAMILTON COUNTY
JUSTICE CENTER, et al.,
Defendants.

NOTICE

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy of
the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations. This period may be extended further by the Court on
timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected
to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report
and Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring on the record at an oral
hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such
portions of it as all parties may agree upon, or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the
assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party’s objections
WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. 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).


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION
DELFON BLAIR, Case No. 1:18-cv-267
Plaintiff, Dlott, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.
vs.
HAMILTON COUNTY
JUSTICE CENTER, et al., REPORT AND
Defendants. RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, a resident of Cincinnati, Ohio, brings this pro se civil action against the
Hamilton County Justice Center and “multiple officers.” 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 plaintiff's 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(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

Jorma 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). 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, 490

US. at 328-29; 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 swa 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). 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 Jgbal 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 well-
pleaded factual allegations as true, but need not “accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a
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.” Jgbal, 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.” /d. 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).

Plaintiff's pro se complaint alleges, verbatim, that on some unspecified date:

I was being book into the justices center, | was complyent, the didn’t take me

threw the scanner coming in they took me to the back room, told me to strip, as I

took my clothes off to squat and coff, they beging beating me badly then drug me

naket to a chair, and left me there once I got to a room they skipped meals then

cut off my water, J had no reason to go to that back room, it was serious personal

injury 28 USCA 1915(g) cut in arm will discuss more of the serious injury court.

(Doc. 1-1 at 3). As relief, plaintiff seeks $40 million and “charges pressed on them.” (Jd. at 4).

Plaintiff's complaint is subject to dismissal at the screening stage for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted by this Court. In order to state a viable claim under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff must allege facts showing that he was deprived of “a right secured by the
United States Constitution or a federal statute by a person who was acting under color of state
law.” Spadafore v. Gardner, 330 F.3d 849, 852 (6th Cir.2003). Here, plaintiff's factual
allegations do not give rise to a plausible claim of federal constitutional dimension against the
named defendant or unidentified “multiple officers” defendants.

First, plaintiff's complaint against the Hamilton County Justice Center is subject to
dismissal because the jail is not a “person” or legal entity that can be sued under § 1983. See
Marbry v. Corr. Med. Servs., No. 99-6706, 2000 WL 1720959, at *2 (6th Cir. Nov. 6, 2000)
(citing Rhodes v. McDannel, 945 F.2d 117, 120 (6th Cir. 1991) (per curiam)); Howell v.

Hamilton Cty. Justice, Ctr., No. 1:15-CV-303, 2015 WL 2406082, at *3 (S.D. Ohio May 20,