David Goodykoontz v. State of Ohio, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio dismissed pro se prisoner David Goodykoontz’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A. The court held that allegations concerning inadequate or harmful treatment for Tourette syndrome did not plausibly establish deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment, and that the allegations of discrimination and denial of protective custody were conclusory. The court also certified that an appeal could not be taken in good faith.

Holdings

1. The complaint failed to state a plausible Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim because, even assuming an objectively serious medical need, the allegations did not plausibly show that any defendant possessed the required subjective state of mind or consciously disregarded a substantial risk of harm.
2. The complaint failed to state any other plausible federal claim because the allegations of discrimination and the warden's refusal to place plaintiff in protective custody were purely conclusory and did not satisfy basic pleading requirements.
3. The complaint was dismissed before service for failure to state a plausible claim upon which relief could be granted under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated a plausible Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim based on allegedly inadequate or harmful medical treatment.
2. Whether the complaint stated any other plausible federal claim based on conclusory allegations of discrimination or the warden's refusal to place plaintiff in protective custody.
3. Whether the complaint was subject to dismissal during statutory screening under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A.

Disposition

dismissed