Lency Donnell August v. Warden James J. Forshey, et al.

Summary

This Order and Report and Recommendation addresses the initial screening of a pro se Ohio inmate’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A. The court grants leave to proceed in forma pauperis and recommends dismissal of the official-capacity claims, claims against the warden and certain correctional officers, and most constitutional claims. It recommends allowing an individual-capacity excessive-force claim against D. Stack arising from the use of mace during a December 2024 pat-down to proceed.

Holdings

1. The plaintiff's official-capacity claims against the defendants must be dismissed because they are barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and no exception applies.
2. The individual-capacity claims against Warden Forshey must be dismissed because the complaint does not allege his personal involvement or knowing authorization, approval, or acquiescence in the alleged misconduct.
3. The plaintiff failed to state a free-exercise claim because the alleged one-time interference with prayer was de minimis and did not substantially burden his sincerely held religious exercise.
4. The plaintiff failed to state equal-protection claims against Larrison, M. Stack, or D. Stack because he alleged neither disparate treatment of similarly situated persons nor facts permitting an inference of intentional and purposeful discrimination.
5. The plaintiff failed to state excessive-force claims against Larrison and M. Stack because the alleged handcuffing and light ankle kicks did not satisfy the objective seriousness requirement.
6. The plaintiff should be permitted to proceed on his individual-capacity excessive-force claim against D. Stack based on the alleged use of mace during the December 2024 pat-down.
7. The plaintiff failed to state deliberate-indifference-to-medical-needs claims against M. Stack and D. Stack because he did not allege that either defendant knew of and consciously disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the plaintiff's official-capacity claims for damages were barred by sovereign immunity.
2. Whether the plaintiff stated a personal-involvement claim under § 1983 against Warden Forshey.
3. Whether the plaintiff stated First Amendment free-exercise, Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection, and Eighth Amendment excessive-force claims against Officer Larrison.
4. Whether the plaintiff stated equal-protection, excessive-force, or deliberate-indifference-to-medical-needs claims against Officers M. Stack and D. Stack.
5. Whether the plaintiff should be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis and whether the complaint should be screened and partially dismissed under §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.

Disposition

other