Thompson v. City of Shaker Heights

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ANDRE D. THOMPSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF SHAKER HEIGHTS,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 1:25-cv-2535
Judge J. Philip Calabrese
Magistrate Judge Reuben J. Sheperd
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Andre D. Thompson filed this action without a lawyer against the City
of Shaker Heights. 	He alleges violations of his federal civil rights under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 for violations arising from a 2002 prosecution and conviction in Shaker
Heights Municipal Court.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 2002, when Plaintiff was 22, he was charged with domestic violence in
Shaker Heights, Ohio. 	(ECF No. 4, ¶¶ 2 & 12, PageID #67–68.) 	In his amended
complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the complaining witness failed to appear, despite
being subpoenaed. (Id., ¶ 13, PageID #68.) When the complaining witness failed to
appear, the municipal court issued a contempt summons. (Id., ¶ 14.) Plaintiff claims
that he was not informed of these facts at the time. 	(Id., ¶ 15.) 	Instead, he was
brought directly to court from jail, where he was held on another charge. 	(Id.,
¶¶ 17–18.) 	When he appeared on the domestic violence charge, he did not have
Case: 1:25-cv-02535-JPC Doc #: 5 Filed: 11/24/25 1 of 5. PageID #: <pageID>

2
counsel and entered a plea of no contest without knowing that the prosecution had
no admissible evidence. (Id., ¶¶ 19–20.) Had he known the complaining witness did
not appear, he would have insisted on dismissal of the charge. 	(Id. ¶ 25.) 	In the
amended complaint, Plaintiff pleads that, in 2025, he “obtained newly discovered
records confirming these facts.” (Id., ¶ 21.) Plaintiff now contends that his plea was
“not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary” because he was not informed of material facts.
(Id., ¶ 29.)
Plaintiff brings three claims under Section 1983: 	(1) a due process violation
under the Fourteenth Amendment; (2) malicious prosecution; and (3) Monell liability.
(Id., ¶¶ 26–41, PageID #68–69.) Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages,
and attorneys’ fees and costs. (Id., PageID #69–70.)
Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) and
a motion for leave to file an exhibit under seal, which apparently consists of his
confidential medical and psychological treatment records and relate to his claim for
damages (ECF No. 3). 	The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis.
ANALYSIS
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). Under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B), a federal court must review all complaints filed in forma pauperis and
dismiss before service any such complaint that the court determines is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary
Case: 1:25-cv-02535-JPC Doc #: 5 Filed: 11/24/25 2 of 5. PageID #: <pageID>

3
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d
468, 470 (6th Cir. 2010).
Section 1983 does not provide a statute of limitations. Therefore, federal courts
borrow the applicable limitations period from the most analogous one available under
State law. 	Collyer v. Darling, 98 F.3d 211, 220 (6th Cir. 1996). 	For the claims
Plaintiff asserts, the most closely analogous statute is Ohio’s two-year limitations
period for personal injuries in Section 2305.10(A) of the Ohio Revised Code.
Federal law governs when a plaintiff’s federal claims against a defendant
accrue. Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388 (2007); see Green v. City of Southfield, 759
F. App’x 410, 414 (6th Cir. 2018) (citing Sevier v. Turner, 742 F.2d 262, 273 (6th Cir.
1984)). “The statute of limitations commences when the plaintiff knows or has reason
to know of the injury which is the basis of h[is] action.” 	Green, 759 F. App’x at 414
(quoting Sevier, 742 F.2d at 273) (cleaned up). A plaintiff has reason to know of his
injury when it could have been learned of through the exercise of reasonable
diligence. Id.
Plaintiff contends that he did not learn of the issues with his municipal court
case, including, the unavailability of the witness, the subpoenas, and the contempt
summons, until 2025 through newly discovered records. 	(ECF No. 4, ¶ 21, PageID
#68.) But the court records at issue, including the summons for contempt are public
documents. 	Even if, contrary to normal practice they were not filed on a public
docket, nothing prevented Plaintiff from learning this same information years earlier
through the exercise of reasonable diligence. Because Plaintiff knew of his injury (his
Case: 1:25-cv-02535-JPC Doc #: 5 Filed: 11/24/25 3 of 5. PageID #: <pageID>

4
conviction) when it occurred, his cause of action accrued then. Green, 759 F. App’x at
414. And Plaintiff’s Section 1983 causes of action for monetary damages are barred
by the two-year statute of limitations. 	In fact, the conviction in municipal court
occurred over 20 years ago, well outside the limitations period. 	Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s complaint fails to survive screening under Section 1915.
Additionally, the Supreme Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477
(1994), bars Plaintiff’s damages on the basis of the “unlawful conviction” in the
Shaker Height Municipal Court. 	In Heck, the Supreme court held that a plaintiff
may not pursue a Section 1983 claim for damages arising out of an allegedly unlawful
conviction unless and until he proves that the conviction has already been “reversed
on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal,
or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Id. at
486–87. 	Nothing in Plaintiff’s complaint suggests that his conviction or sentence
upon which his complaint is based has been called into question or invalidated as
Heck requires.
Finally, to the extent Plaintiff seeks review of his conviction in municipal court,
the Court lacks jurisdiction to do so. 	Federal courts do not have jurisdiction to
overturn State court decisions, even if the request to reverse a State court judgement
is based on an allegation that the State court’s action was unconstitutional. See, e.g.,
Black v. Falvey, No. 5:17-cv-2011, 2018 WL 501313, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 22, 2018)
(dismissing pro se action seeking relief from municipal court conviction); see also Bey
v. Weisenburger, No. 3:23-cv-356, 2023 WL 3601911, at *3 (N.D. Ohio May 23, 2023)
Case: 1:25-cv-02535-JPC Doc #: 5 Filed: 11/24/25 4 of 5. PageID #: <pageID>

5
(dismissing pro se plaintiff’s civil rights complaint challenging the legality of his
convictions in a municipal court).
CONCLUSION
For all these reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in
forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B), and DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file under seal
(ECF No.3). Further, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the Court certifies that an
appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 24, 2025
J. Philip Calabrese
United States District Judge
Northern District of Ohio
Case: 1:25-cv-02535-JPC Doc #: 5 Filed: 11/24/25 5 of 5. PageID #: <pageID>