case: 1 :19- cv-02064 - SO ooC ,;: 3 Filed : 01/23/20 1 of 4 .

Pag e lD u : 62

UNITE D STATES DISTRI C T COURT

NORTH E RN DISTRIC T OF OHIO
EA STERN DIVISION

Case No. : I: 19 CV 2064

JOSH U A BRADLE Y , Pro Se. )
)
Plain Ii ff )
) JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.
V. )
)
CITY OF CLEVELAND HEIGHTS, et al. )
)
) MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
Defendants ) AND ORDER

Introduction
1
This is another prose action filed by Plaintiff Joshua Bradley ("Plaintiff'). In this case. the

Plaintiff sues the City of Cleveland Heights and two Cleveland Heights police officers, Officers

Michael Laurello and Lewis E. Alvis ("Defendant Officers"). His action pertains to hi s December

18, 2018 arrest and transfer to Solon police custody on a warrant issued by the Solon Police

Department. (ECF No . l .) The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant Officers unlawfully pulled him over

on December 18th in C leveland Heights "due to bias," and then subjected him to excessive force in

connection with the application of handcuffs and transferring him to Solon police custody. (See id.

at , ,, , 9-31.) Alleging state and federal civil ri ght s claims, the Plaintiff seeks damages and other relief

aga inst the C it y of C leveland Hei ghts and the Defendant O ffi ce rs. In a prio r case. the Plaintiff su,~d

the C ity of Solon and Solon poli ce and detenti on offi ce rs in connrcti on with hi s December 18. 20 1S

'The Plaintiff is a fn.:quclll fikr in thi s di stri ct and has fil ed a number of pre vious prose cases
against va ri o us defendants.
 Case: l :19-cv-02064-S0 Doc#: 3 Filed: 01/23/20 2 of 4. PagelD #: 63

arrest and transfer · See 8 rad!ey v. City of Solon, et al., Case No. I: 19 CV 244 (N.D. Ohio). That

case was settled and dismissed on August 23, 2019.

· tIus
With his Complaint In · case, the Pl amt1ff
. . has filed a mouon
. to proceed i11 .fonna
.

pauperis. (ECF. No. 2.) That application is granted. Accordingly, his Complaint is now before the

court for initial screening under 28 U.S.C. § 19 I 5(e), which statute requires district courts to screen

all i11 forma pauperis complaints filed in federal court, and to dismiss before service any such

complaint or portion of it that the court determines is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
1h
such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), Hill v. Lappin , 630 F.3d 468, 4 70-71 (6 Cir. 20 I 0).

In order to survive a dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B), a prose complaint

must set forth sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on

its face. Hill , 630 at 471-72 (holding that the di smissal standard articulated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556

U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) with respect to motions

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) also governs dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 19l5(e)(2)(B)).

Discussion

Upon review, the court will allow the action to proceed as against the Defendant Officers.

The Plaintiffs allegations liberall y construed are sufficient to suggest he may have plausible civil

rights claims against them in connection with their roles in his December 18, 2018 arrest. See e.g ..

Baynes v. Cleland, 799 F.3d 600 (6'h Cir. 2015) (excessively forceful or unduly tight handcuffing

may constitute a violation of an arrestee's constitutional rights). The court, however, must di smiss

the action as against the City of Cleveland Heights. ''It is firm ly established that a municipality

cannot be held liable under§ 1983 for an injury inflicted solely by its employees or agents."

2
 Case: 1:19-cv-02064-SO Doc#: 3 Filed: 01/23/20 3 of 4. PagelD #: 64

GregOl)' V. Shelby County, Tenn ., 220 F.3d 433,441 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing Monell v. New York City

Dep't. ofSoc. Servs. 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978)). A local government may be liable only where the
. II d · ht ·otation Monell 436 U.S. at
government's own official policy or custom causes an a ege ng s vt ' · '
· · · · I "'policy connect the policy
694-95. This requires a plaintiff to identify a specific unconstltuttona '
· · · db cause of the execution of that
ro the city itself, and show that the particular m.1ury was mcurre e
. .ro 38 F Jd 2 8? 287 (6th Cir. I 994). A plaintiff must cite specific
policy." Searcy v. CJly OJ ay1011, · -·

faces in support ofsuch a claim. Conclusoryallegations are insufficient. McDougaldv. Timberlake,

Case No. \ : 18 CV 744, 2010WL518 l 73, at *2-3 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 2,2010).

Here, although the Plaintiff purports to allege a Mon ell claim against the City of Cleveland

Heights in connection with his December \ 8th arrest (see ECF Doc. No. 1 at ,, 84-94 ), he has not

alleged specific facts sufficient to support a plausible inference that an unconstitutional policy of the

City of Cleveland Heights itself caused the rights violations he alleges by the Defendant Officers.

Instead, the Plaintiff simply alleges, in purely conc\usory terms, that the City had "de facto policies,

practices, and customs," including: failing "to properly hire, train, supervise, discipline, transfer,

monitor, counsel and/or otherwise control city of Cleveland [H]eights police officers" who use

excessive force and conduct unlawful searches and seizures; a "police code of silence"; and

"encouragement" and "failure to investigate" uses of excessive forc e and unlawful searches. (Id . at

87.) The Plaintiff alleges no specific facts to support any such "de facto" policies. Further, also

in purely conclusory terms, the Plaintiff alleges that these "interrelated policies, practices, and

customs, individually and together" were the ''mov ing force" behind the ri ghts violations he alleges.

(Id . at ii 94.) Even libera lly construed, the Plaintiffs conclusory allegations, without supporting

facts, are insufficient to support a plausible Monell claim against the City of Cleveland Heights.

3
 T
c ase: 1:19-cv-02064-SO Doc#: 3 Filed: 01123120 4 of 4. PagelD #: 65

Conclusion

· City
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's action is dismissed as against the . of Cleveland Heights
, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
pursuant to 28 U .S.C. § I 9 l 5( e)(2)(B). The court further certifies

1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this dismissal could not be taken in good faith.

The court will allow this action to proceed as againS t the Defendant Officers. However, the

Plaintiff has not provided the court with completed U.S · Mru-shal fonns and summon~s ,equi«d ,a
:c: and the Clerk's Office is unable to forward this matter to the U.S.
serve the Defendant Ofi1cers,
. f Therefore if the Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this case, he must
Marshal for service o process. ,
. h Cl k' office-within thirty days of this Order-compleled U.S. Marshal forms and
provide to t e er s
summonses sufficient for the U.S. Marshal to initiale service of process. The Clerk's Office is

hereby directed to send with this Order sufficient U•S. Marshal forms and summonses to the Plaintiff

for this purpose.

The Plaintiff is further ordered, within thirty days, to file a "Notice of Compliance" in this

case, stating that he has provided the required completed forms to the Clerk's Office. The Plaintiff

is notified that failure to comply with this Order will result in immediate dismissal of this case

without further notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Isl SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.

SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
January 23, 2020