govinfo:USCOURTS-ohnd-1_26-cv-01248-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
BARBARA J. HOBBS, ) CASE NO. 1:26 CV 1248 
)
Plaintiff, ) JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER
 )
  vs. )
) MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
CITY OF EUCLID, et al., ) AND ORDER
)
Defendants. )
Pro se Plaintiff Barbara J. Hobbs filed this action against the City of Euclid, the Euclid
Police Department, Officer Christopher Frato, Unknown Narcotics Officers, Nina M. Sakal and
“all other unknown parties.”  (Doc. No. 1 at PageID #: 1)..  In the Complaint (Doc. No. 1),
Plaintiff indicates officers forcibly entered her residence using a battering ram to execute a
search warrant, and damaged her personal property.  She asserts claims for unreasonable search
and seizure and use of excessive force under the Fourth Amendment, civil conspiracy and
intentional infliction of emotional distress.  She seeks monetary damages. 
Plaintiff also filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.  (Doc. No. 2).  That
Application is granted.  
I.  BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s Complaint is very brief.  She alleges that on February 17, 2026, “officers
forcibly entered [her] residence using a battering ram without proper identification.”  (Doc. No.
Case: 1:26-cv-01248-DAP  Doc #: 3  Filed:  06/01/26  1 of 6.  PageID #: <pageID>
1 at PageID #: 1).  She describes herself as an elderly cancer patient and contends she was
detained while officers conducted a destructive search.  She asserts that the warrant lacked
specificity, probable cause, and scope, which resulted in an exploratory search.  She states that
her property was damaged and items were seized without justification.  She asserts claims for
violation of her Fourth Amendment rights, civil conspiracy and intentional infliction of
emotional distress.  She seeks monetary damages, and return of the property taken during the
search..
 II.  STANDARD OF REVIEW 
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364,
365 (1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the Court is required to
dismiss an in forma pauperis action under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e) if it fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, or if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.  Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990); Sistrunk v. City of
Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact
when it is premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory or when the factual contentions are
clearly baseless.  Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.  
A cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it lacks
“plausibility in the Complaint.”  Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 564 (2007).  A
pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.”  Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009).  The factual allegations in the
pleading must be sufficient to raise the right to relief above the speculative level on the
-2-
Case: 1:26-cv-01248-DAP  Doc #: 3  Filed:  06/01/26  2 of 6.  PageID #: <pageID>
assumption that all the allegations in the Complaint are true.  Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 555. 
The Plaintiff is not required to include detailed factual allegations, but must provide more than
“an unadorned, the-Defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”  Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.  A
pleading that offers legal conclusions or a simple recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not meet this pleading standard.  Id.  In reviewing a Complaint, the Court must construe the
pleading in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff.  Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 151
F.3d 559, 561 (6th Cir.1998)
III.  ANALYSIS
As an initial matter, the Euclid Police Department is not a proper party to this action. It is
not sui juris, meaning it is not a separate legal entity created under Ohio law that can sue or be
sued. See Carmichael v. City of Cleveland, 571 F. App’x 426, 435 (6th Cir. 2014) (finding that
“under Ohio law, a county sheriff’s office is not a legal entity that is capable of being sued”);
Gibson v. Mechanicsburg Police Dep’t, No. 3:16cv48, 2017 WL 2418317, at *5 (S.D. Ohio
2017) (Rice, D.J.) (Mechanicsburg police department not sui juris ).  Instead, the Euclid Police
Department is merely a subunit within the City of Euclid.  Plaintiff’s claim against the Euclid
Police Department fail as a matter of law.
Plaintiff also fails to state a claim against the City of Euclid.  Section 1983 does not
permit a Plaintiff to sue a local government entity on the theory of respondeat superior.  Monell
v. New York City Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 692- 94 (1978).  The term respondeat
superior is Latin for “let the master answer” and is a form of vicarious liability in law, meaning
one party (the employer) can be held legally responsible for the actions of another (the employee
-3-
Case: 1:26-cv-01248-DAP  Doc #: 3  Filed:  06/01/26  3 of 6.  PageID #: <pageID>
or agent) when those actions occur during the course of employment.  This doctrine is
commonly applied in tort cases, where an employee’s negligence or wrongful act causes harm to
a third party.  In an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a local government entity cannot be sued on
the theory of respondeat superior.  Monell v. New York City Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658,
692- 94 (1978).  Instead, a Plaintiff may only hold a local government entity liable under § 1983
for the entity’s own wrongdoing.  Id.  
A local government entity violates §1983 where its official policy or custom actually
serves to deprive an individual of his or her constitutional rights.  Id.  A “municipal policy”
includes “a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and
promulgated.”  Powers v. Hamilton County Pub. Defender Comm'n, 501 F.3d 592, 607 (6th Cir.
2007) (quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at 690).  A “custom” for purposes of Monell liability must “be
so permanent and well-settled as to constitute a custom or usage with the force of law.”  Monell,
436 U.S. at 691.  It must reflect a course of action deliberately chosen from among various
alternatives.  City of Oklahoma v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 823 (1985).  In short, a “custom” is a
legal institution not memorialized by written law.  Feliciano v. City of Cleveland, 988 F.2d 649,
655 (6th Cir. 1993).  To state a claim for relief against a municipality under § 1983, a plaintiff
must: (1) identify the particular municipal policy or custom, (2) connect the policy to the
municipality, and (3) show that his particular injury was incurred due to execution of that policy. 
Alkire v. Irving, 330 F.3d 802, 815 (6th Cir. 2003). 
Plaintiff’s only allegation of a policy or custom is stated as “Monell Liability (Failure to
Train/Supervise).  This is not sufficient to suggest a plausible claim against the City of Euclid. 
-4-
Case: 1:26-cv-01248-DAP  Doc #: 3  Filed:  06/01/26  4 of 6.  PageID #: <pageID>
The inadequacy of police training only serves as a basis for § 1983 liability where the City’s
failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with whom the police
come into contact.  Slusher v. Carson, 540 F.3d 449, 457 (6th Cir. 2008)). To establish
deliberate indifference, the Plaintiff may show prior instances of the same unconstitutional
conduct demonstrating that the governmental entity has ignored a history of abuse and was
clearly on notice that the training in this particular area was deficient and likely to cause injury.
Id.; see also Gregory v. City of Louisville, 444 F.3d 725, 752-53 (6th Cir.2006). In the
alternative, where the constitutional violation was not alleged to be part of a pattern of past
misconduct, Plaintiff may hold the municipality liable only if he or she alleges sufficient facts to
suggest essentially a complete failure to train the police force or training that is so reckless or
grossly negligent that future police misconduct is almost inevitable or would properly be
characterized as substantially certain to result. Hays v. Jefferson Cnty., Ky., 668 F.2d 869, 874
(6th Cir.1982).  Plaintiff does not allege any facts to support this allegation.  Instead she simply
seeks to hold the City responsible for the actions of its individual officers.  This is respondeat
superior liability, which cannot form the basis of a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Finally, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Officer Christopher Frato, Nina M. Sakal,
“unknown narcotic officers,” and “all other unknown parties.”  Plaintiff cannot establish the
liability of any Defendant absent a clear showing that the particular Defendant was personally
involved in the activities which form the basis of the alleged unconstitutional behavior.  Rizzo v.
Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976); Mullins v. Hainesworth, No. 95-3186, 1995 WL 559381 (6th
Cir. Sept. 20, 1995).  Plaintiff simply lists these Defendants in the case caption.  There are no
-5-
Case: 1:26-cv-01248-DAP  Doc #: 3  Filed:  06/01/26  5 of 6.  PageID #: <pageID>
facts in the Complaint which suggest what actions each of these Defendants personally did that
Plaintiff believes violated her constitutional rights.  Moreover, Plaintiff’s designation of
:unknown narcotic officers” and “all other unknown parties” is far too broad to hold any
particular officer or person liable.  The claims against these Defendants must be dismissed.
IV.  CONCLUSION 
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is
granted.  This action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The Court certifies,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good
faith.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
                                                                           
DAN AARON POLSTER 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
     1 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides:
An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies that it is not
taken in good faith.
-6-
6/1/2026
Case: 1:26-cv-01248-DAP  Doc #: 3  Filed:  06/01/26  6 of 6.  PageID #: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight