Washington v. Montgomery County
Washington v. Montgomery County
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
JE’TARRE WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff, Case No. 3:20-cv-214
vs.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, et al., District Judge Walter H. Rice Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________________________
ORDER _____________________________________________________________________________________
This pro se civil case is before the Court on an initial review pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915. Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court may dismiss a complaint upon finding (1) the claims are frivolous or malicious; (2) it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (3) it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. It is appropriate for the Court to conduct this review sua sponte prior to issuance of process “so as to spare prospective defendants the inconvenience and expense of answering such complaints.” Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 324(1989). Having conducted this initial review, the Court finds that dismissal under
28 U.S.C. § 1915is not warranted at this early stage of the litigation. Accordingly, upon the receipt of the required forms necessary to effectuate service of process, the Clerk is ORDERED to forward the required documents to the U.S. Marshal for service on Defendants by mail. The Court NOTIFIES pro se Plaintiff of his duty to complete service of process on each Defendant within 90 days from the date of this Order. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this case without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: October 13, 2020 s/ Michael J. Newman Michael J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
Reference
- Status
- Unknown