Goodykoontz v. State of Ohio, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
David Goodykoontz,
Plaintiff,
-vs-
State of Ohio, et al.,
Defendant.
Case No. 1:25 cv 1724
JUDGE PAMELA A. BARKER
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER
Background
Pro se Plaintiff David Goodykoontz, an Ohio inmate, has filed a federal prisoner civil rights
complaint in this case against the State of Ohio, Cuyahoga County, MetroHealth, and four “unknown”
Defendants. He states he sues Defendants “for damages for discrimination and deliberate indifference
to [his] serious medical need, or similar.” (Doc. No. 1 at 6, ¶1.)
His complaint fails to set forth clear specific factual allegations underlying his claims and
with respect to each Defendant. The basis for his complaint is that “Defendants” failed to properly
treat him for Tourettes while incarcerated in Ohio and prescribed him antidepressant medication
(including SSRIs and Wellbutrin) that was either ineffective or led to or exacerbated his Tourettes.
(See id. at 6-7.) He complains that “Defendants refused to take [him] off the SSRIs and put him on
another type of antidepressant and refused to give him any treatment for his verbal and physical tics.”
(Id. at 7.) 	In addition, he states he sues “Unknown Defendant 4, the Warden of the Lorain
Correctional Institution . . . for failing to allow [him] to go into PC, where plaintiff is a federal agent,”
and that he “has extensive damages from such refusal.” 	(Id. at 7, ¶2.)
Case: 1:25-cv-01724-PAB Doc #: 5 Filed: 12/10/25 1 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

2
Standard of Review
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis and seeks redress from governmental
defendants, his complaint is subject to review under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A. Those statutes
require the Court to review his complaint, and to dismiss it before service if the Court determines that
it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which he may be granted relief, or seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468,
470–71 (6th Cir. 2010). To survive a dismissal for failure to state a claim, a pro se ‘“complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.’” Hill, 630 F.3d at 471 (holding that the dismissal standard articulated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) governs dismissals for
failure to state a claim under §§ 1915(e) and 1915A).
Discussion
Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed pursuant to §§
1915(e) and 1915A.
Failure to provide adequate medical treatment to a prisoner violates the Eighth Amendment’s
prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment only when it results from “deliberate indifference”
to the prisoner’s serious medical needs. 	Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). 	To state a
constitutional Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim, a prisoner must demonstrate both
objective and subjective components. 	He must demonstrate that he had a medical condition that
posed a “substantial risk of serious harm” to him (the objective component), and, that a defendant
prison official acted with deliberate indifference to that risk (the subjective component). Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 828 (1994). 	“Deliberate indifference is characterized by obduracy or
Case: 1:25-cv-01724-PAB Doc #: 5 Filed: 12/10/25 2 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

3
wantonness – it cannot be predicated on negligence, inadvertence, or good faith error.” 	Reilly v.
Vadlamudi, 680 F.3d 617, 624 (6th Cir. 2012). Thus, to prove the subjective component of a claim,
“a plaintiff must show that [a prison] official: (1) subjectively knew of a risk to the inmate’s health,
(2) drew the inference that a substantial risk of harm to the inmate existed, and (3) consciously
disregarded that risk.” 	Jones v. Muskegon Cty., 625 F.3d 935, 941 (6th Cir. 2010). 	It is well-
established that allegations of medical malpractice or negligent diagnosis and treatment fail to state
a constitutional deliberate indifference claim. 	Jennings v. Al-Dabagh, 97 Fed. App’x 548, 549-50
(6th Cir. 2004).
Here, even assuming Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to demonstrate he had an objectively
serious medical need, his allegations are insufficient to support a plausible inference that any
Defendant prison employee or official had the subjective state of mind with respect to his care
required to demonstrate constitutional “deliberate indifference.” Further, it is clear from Plaintiff’s
pleading that he has been provided medical care but contends the treatment he has been provided is
inadequate, even harmful to him, and that he has been prescribed inappropriate antidepressant
medications. 	But where, as here, a prisoner has received some medical care or treatment, and the
dispute is over the adequacy of such treatment, “federal courts are generally reluctant to second guess
medical judgments” unless the medical treatment provided is “so woefully inadequate as to amount
to no treatment at all.” 	Westlake v. Lucas, 537 F.2d 857, 860 n. 5 (6th Cir. 1976). 	Plaintiff’s
allegations do not support a plausible finding that the care he has been provided is “so woefully
inadequate as to amount to no treatment at all.” 	Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a
plausible federal constitutional claim for “deliberate indifference” against any Defendant with respect
Case: 1:25-cv-01724-PAB Doc #: 5 Filed: 12/10/25 3 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

4
to his medical care (even assuming his allegations may be sufficient to support a claim for negligence
or medical malpractice under state tort law).
Plaintiff’s complaint also fails to state any other plausible federal claim upon which he may
be granted relief. To the extent he alleges unlawful “discrimination” or that the Warden of the Lorain
Correctional Institution is liable to him “for failing to allow [him] to go into PC,” his allegations are
purely conclusory and fail to meet basic pleading requirements necessary to state a claim in federal
claim. Pro se pleadings are entitled to liberal construction, see Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383
(6th Cir. 2011), but such principles are not without limits. See Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416
(6th Cir. 1996). 	Pro se plaintiffs must still meet basic pleading requirements, and courts are not
required to “conjure allegations” or create claims on their behalf. 	Erwin v. Edwards, 22 F. App’x
579, 580 (6th Cir. 2001). See also Lillard v. Shelby County Bd. of Educ., 76 F.3d 716, 726 (6th Cir.
1996) (in the context of a civil rights claim, conclusory allegations of unconstitutional conduct are
insufficient to state a claim).
Conclusion
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for failure to state
a plausible claim upon which he may be granted relief in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and
1915A. 	The Court further certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this
decision could not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Pamela A. Barker
PAMELA A. BARKER
Date: 	December 10, 2025 	U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 1:25-cv-01724-PAB Doc #: 5 Filed: 12/10/25 4 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>