Campbell v. Dayton Ohio Police Department et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION (DAYTON)
JOHN WILLIAM CAMPBELL,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DAYTON OHIO POLICE DEPT., et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 3:25-cv-00347
District Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
John William Campbell sues the Dayton, Ohio, Police Department and four of its
officers for false arrest, unreasonable seizure, and false imprisonment. (Doc. No. 4.) The
undersigned Magistrate Judge previously advised Plaintiff Campbell—who is proceeding
here without the assistance of counsel—that the Complaint is deficient, in that “it does
not allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim.” (Order for Amended Complaint,
Doc. No. 5 at PageID 38 [all emphases in original].) “In the interest of judicial economy,
and rather than recommending dismissal of the claims outright, the Court [ordered]
Plaintiff to amend his Complaint to include additional factual information about what
allegedly occurred when Defendants arrested and searched him.” (Id. at PageID 38.) The
Court ordered Plaintiff “to file an Amended Complaint setting forth his claims in more
detail, and providing the required factual support, by December 1, 2025.” (Id. at PageID
40.) To date, Plaintiff has not done so.
Case: 3:25-cv-00347-TMR-CHG Doc #: 6 Filed: 01/07/26 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
The original Complaint alleges only a few facts. (Doc. No. 4.) The undersigned
previously recited them as follows:
Here, Plaintiff alleges that, on January 12, 2025, at an address in Dayton,
Ohio, Defendants “conspired” to charge Plaintiff with resisting arrest and
obstruction of official business, “which resulted in a false arrest and
unlawful incarceration.” (Doc. No. 4 at PageID 35.) Plaintiff “believe[s] the
arrest was unlawful based on a lack of probable cause 2nd violation of due
process and constitutional rights.” (Id.) He also asserts that the Defendant
Officers “engage[d] in an illegal search . . . that violate[d] my Fourth
Amendment Right.” (Id.) Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, including for
“lost time spent in incarceration/jail” and unidentified injunctive relief. (Id.
at PageID 36.)
While these statements appear to identify the relevant claims, they are
conclusory and factually insufficient to state a claim on which relief may be
granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To proceed in this case, Plaintiff must
allege facts that describe how each Defendant violated his rights. Reid v.
City of Detroit, No. 18-13681, 2020 WL 5902597, at *6 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 5,
2020) (“The Sixth Circuit ‘has consistently held that damage claims against
government officials arising from alleged violations of constitutional rights
must allege, with particularity, facts that demonstrate what each defendant
did that violated the asserted constitutional right’”) (quoting Lanman v.
Hinson, 529 F.3d 673, 684 (6th Cir. 2008)) (emphasis in original).
(Doc. No. 5 at PageID 39.)
As the undersigned advised Plaintiff, the Court is required to screen the Complaint
and must dismiss any part of it that is frivolous or malicious; that fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted; or that seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). (See Doc. No. 5 at PageID 37.)
Plaintiff’s Complaint here (Doc. No. 4) fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted, even if the Court liberally construes it because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se.
Plaintiff’s claims against the individual officers fail because Plaintiff does not say what
each one did to violate his rights. See Reid, 2020 WL 5902597, at *6; Homrich v. City of
Case: 3:25-cv-00347-TMR-CHG Doc #: 6 Filed: 01/07/26 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
Wyoming, No. 1:25-cv-296, 2025 WL 2641761, at *5 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 15, 2025) (“A
defendant violates the Fourth Amendment’s bar on unreasonable seizures if they arrest a
person without probable cause to believe that the person committed a crime or was in the
process of committing a crime. Probable cause turns on whether an objectively
reasonable officer would conclude that there is a probability or substantial chance of
criminal activity, thereby justifying an arrest.”) (cleaned up); Frenchko v. Monroe, No.
24-3116, 2025 WL 3295435, at *9 n.6 (6th Cir. Nov. 26, 2025) (“pleading a § 1983 civil
conspiracy claim requires specificity, not vague and conclusory allegations unsupported
by material facts.”) (cleaned up).
Any claim against the City of Dayton Police Department should also be dismissed,
as a police department is not a “person” who can be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See
Hohenberg v. Shelby Cnty., Tenn., 68 F.4th 336, 342 (6th Cir. 2023) (“Section 1983
creates liability for ‘persons’ who deprive others of federal rights under color of law.
Only a ‘person’ faces liability under the statute.”); Nichols v. Warnecke, No. 2:24-cv-104,
2024 WL 5170120, at *5 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 19, 2024), report and recommendation
adopted, 2025 WL 252828 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 21, 2025) (“law enforcement agencies are not
‘persons’ as that term is used in Section 1983”).
To the extent Plaintiff may raise a municipal liability claim against the City of
Dayton, he has not adequately pled such a claim. See Buehner v. City of Cleveland, 788
F. Supp. 3d 827, 879 (N.D. Ohio 2025) (quoting Burgess v. Fischer, 735 F.3d 462, 478
(6th Cir. 2013)) (“To properly allege a municipal liability claim, a plaintiff must
adequately allege ‘(1) the existence of an illegal official policy or legislative enactment;
Case: 3:25-cv-00347-TMR-CHG Doc #: 6 Filed: 01/07/26 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
(2) that an official with final decision making authority ratified illegal actions; (3) the
existence of a policy of inadequate training or supervision; or (4) the existence of a
custom of tolerance [of] or acquiescence [to] federal rights violations.’”).
The Court should also dismiss the case because Plaintiff failed to comply with the
order to file an amended complaint. (Doc. No. 5.) Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure “permits the court to involuntarily dismiss an action if a plaintiff fails to
prosecute his case or to comply with a court order.” Rogers v. City of Warren, 302 F.
App’x 371, 375 & n.4 (6th Cir. 2008). “District courts also have the inherent power to
sua sponte dismiss civil actions for want of prosecution [in order to] to manage their own
affairs [and] achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash
R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962). Here, Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Order for
Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 5) warrants dismissal of the case.
The undersigned therefore RECOMMENDS that the Court DISMISS this case.
(See Doc. No. 5 at PageID 41 [warning Plaintiff that if he “does not respond to this Order
and does not file an Amended Complaint, then this Magistrate Judge will recommend that
the Court dismiss the case because the original Complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted and/or because Plaintiff failed to comply with a Court
order.”)].)
The undersigned further RECOMMENDS that the Court CERTIFY that an
appeal of any order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in
good faith and therefore DENY Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997).
Case: 3:25-cv-00347-TMR-CHG Doc #: 6 Filed: 01/07/26 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

5
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
/s/ Caroline H. Gentry
Caroline H. Gentry
United States Magistrate Judge
Notice Regarding Objections to this Report and Recommendations
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendations (“R&R”), the party may
serve and file specific, written objections to it within fourteen (14) days after being
served with a copy thereof. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). All objections shall specify the
portion(s) of the R&R objected to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in
support of the objections. The Court may extend the fourteen-day objections period if a
timely motion for an extension of time is filed.
A District Judge of this Court will make a de novo determination of those portions
of the R&R to which objection is made. Upon proper objection, a District Judge of this
Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
made herein, may receive further evidence or may recommit this matter to the Magistrate
Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the R&R will result in
a waiver of the right to have the District Judge review the R&R de novo, and will also
operate as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of the District Court adopting the
R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947
(6th Cir. 1981).
Case: 3:25-cv-00347-TMR-CHG Doc #: 6 Filed: 01/07/26 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>