Smith v. United States Postal Service, No. 2:2020cv12578 - Document 5 (E.D. Mich. 2020)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER of Summary Dismissal re 1 Complaint filed by Henry Smith. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (JMcC)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Smith v. United States Postal Service Doc. 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION HENRY V. SMITH, #253477, Case Number: 20-cv-12578 HON. SEAN F. COX Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant. / OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL Plaintiff Henry V. Smith is in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections. He has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that the defendant United States Postal Service (USPS) violated his rights under the Due Process Clause when it failed to deliver his petition for writ of habeas corpus and check for the $5.00 filing fee to this Court. (Id. at PageID.6.) For the reason that follow, the complaint will be dismissed. I. Standard Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint set forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” Dockets.Justia.com as well as “a demand for the relief sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), (3). The purpose of this rule is to “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). While this notice pleading standard does not require “detailed” factual allegations, Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, it does require more than the bare assertion of legal conclusions or “an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee for this action. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), the Court is required to sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint before service on a defendant if it determines that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). To state a federal civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) he was deprived of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the federal Constitution or laws of the United States, and (2) the deprivation was 2 caused by a person acting under color of state law. Flagg Bros. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 155-57 (1978). A pro se civil rights complaint is to be construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). II. The Complaint Plaintiff states that USPS picked up a check and his habeas petition from the Gus Harrison Correctional Facility on January 16, 2002. (ECF No. 1, PageID.6.) The package was addressed to this Court. (Id.) Plaintiff states that USPS failed to deliver the package. (Id.) Plaintiff seeks monetary damages for the loss of his legal pleadings and an additional “$50,000 a year for his actual claim of innocence.” (Id. at 8.) III. Discussion Plaintiff fails to state a claim against the USPS for the failure of mail delivery under § 1983. The USPS is an agency of the United States Government. United States v. Bedford, 914 F.3d 422, 428 (6th Cir. 2019). Neither the United States nor its various federal agencies can be sued under § 1983 because they do not act under color of state law. Franklin v. Henderson, 15 F. App’x 205, 207 (6th Cir. June 20, 2001) (“The federal government and its officials are not subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”). 3 Plaintiff also may not obtain relief under Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). A Bivens action may not be brought against an agency of the United States. F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 486 (1994). Finally, to the extent that Plaintiff raises a claim that he is innocent of the convictions under which he is incarcerated, this claim is not properly raised under § 1983. A claim under § 1983 is an appropriate remedy for a state prisoner challenging a condition of imprisonment, see Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499 (1973), not the validity of continued confinement. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). Under Heck, a prisoner asserting a civil rights action challenging his confinement must allege that the basis for that confinement has been invalidated, whether by direct appeal, collateral attack, or executive order. Id. at 486-87. Plaintiff’s argument that he is innocent is not properly raised in this complaint because his convictions have not been declared invalid. IV. Order For the reasons stated, the Court concludes that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § § 1915(e)(2)(B). 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that if Plaintiff elects to appeal this decision, he may not proceed without prepayment of the fees and costs on appeal because an appeal would be frivolous and could not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). SO ORDERED. s/Sean F. Cox SEAN F. COX UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: October 20, 2020 5
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
