Vehr v. Ohio

Full title: Skye Vehr, Plaintiff v. State of Ohio, Defendant

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Date published: Jul 16, 2013

Civil Action 2:13-cv-0684 (S.D. Ohio Jul. 16, 2013)

Opinion

Civil Action 2:13-cv-0684

07-16-2013

Skye Vehr, Plaintiff v. State of Ohio, Defendant

Mark R. Abel

Judge Watson

Magistrate Judge Abel

Initial Screening Report and Recommendation

Plaintiff Sky Vehr brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Plaintiff's motion to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs is GRANTED.

This matter is before the Magistrate Judge for screening of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2) to identify cognizable claims, and to recommend dismissal of the complaint, or any portion of it, which 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, McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608 (6th Cir. 1997). The Magistrate Judge finds that the claims pleaded in the complaint are barred by sovereign immunity and, therefore, recommends dismissal of the complaint.

The complaint alleges that the State of Ohio has refused to hear plaintiff Skye Vehr's case regarding lethal torts committed on him.

Analysis. The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted
against one of the United States by Citizens of another State or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

It to bar suits against a State by its own citizens. Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 276 (1986); Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890); Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974); Florida Dep't. of State v. Treasure Salvors, Inc., 458 U.S. 670 (1982). Since plaintiff Vehr, a citizen of Ohio, sues the State of Ohio, the suit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the complaint be DISMISSED because the claims pleaded in it are barred by sovereign immunity. Defendant does not have to respond to the complaint unless the Court rejects this Report and Recommendation.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's application to proceed without prepayment of fees be GRANTED. The United States Marshal is ORDERED to serve upon each defendant named in the complaint a copy of the complaint and a copy of this Order.

If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties a motion for reconsideration by the Court, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part thereof in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B); Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P.

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-52 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). See also, Small v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989).

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail a copy of the complaint and this Report and Recommendation to each defendant.

Mark R. Abel

United States Magistrate Judge