UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

JUSTIN MICHAEL EDWARDS, ) CASE NO. 1:22-cv-1786 ) Plaintiff, ) ) JUDGE BRIDGET MEEHAN BRENNAN v. ) ) LAKE COUNTYADULT DETENTION ) MEMORANDUM OPINION FACILITY, ) AND ORDER ) Defendant. )

Introduction Seeking to proceed in forma pauperis, pro se plaintiff Justin Michael Edwards has filed a civil rights complaint in this case pursuant to

against the Lake County Adult Detention Facility. (Doc. No. 1.) He seeks $2 million dollars in damages on the basis that a COVID-19 test was “forced” upon him in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. (See

, ¶ III.C.) Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is granted, and for the following reasons, his complaint is dismissed. Standard of Review and Discussion Federal courts are required to screen all in forma pauperis complaints and dismiss them, at any time, if they are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief.

(e)(2)(B); see also Hill v. Lappin,

(6th Cir. 2010). A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it lacks “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”

(holding that the dismissal standard articulated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009) and Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007), governs dismissals for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)). Upon review, the Court finds that plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed because it fails to state a plausible claim against the defendant and is frivolous.

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that he suffered a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States committed by a person acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins,

(1988). But the only defendant plaintiff has named in his complaint is a state correctional facility, which is not a person subject to suit under § 1983. See Anderson v. Morgan Cnty. Correctional Complex, No. 15-6344,

, at *1 (6th Cir. Sept. 21, 2016) (“A state prison is not a ‘person’ subject to suit under § 1983.”). Accordingly, plaintiff has alleged no plausible claim against the defendant upon which he may be granted relief. In addition, a complaint is properly dismissed as frivolous if it is “duplicative of [an]

earlier action.” Peoples v. Reno, No. 00-1086,

, at *1 (6th Cir. Sept. 26, 2000); see also Cummings v. Mason, No. 1:11-cv-649,

, at *1 (W.D. Mich. July 13, 2011) (“[A]n in forma pauperis complaint that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims may be dismissed under

(e)(2)(i) as frivolous or malicious.”). Among other claims against other defendants, plaintiff has alleged a similar Fourth Amendment claim against the defendant in this case in an earlier action he filed in this district, which is currently pending before another judge. See Edwards v. Van Akin, et al., No. 1: 22-cv- 1666 (N.D. Ohio) (Gaughan, J.). Accordingly, this case, which alleges a claim plaintiff has already asserted against the defendant in another case, is duplicative and frivolous.

2 Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed pursuant to

(e)(2)(B). The Court further certifies, pursuant to

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________________________ BRIDGET MEEHAN BRENNAN Date: January 23, 2023 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3