Johnson #312836 v. Micolo, No. 2:2014cv00161 - Document 4 (W.D. Mich. 2014)
Court Description: OPINION; signed by Judge Gordon J. Quist (Judge Gordon J. Quist, jmt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION LYONELL JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 2:14-cv-161 Honorable Gordon J. Quist JOSEPH MICOLO, Defendant. _______________________/ OPINION This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and Plaintiff will pay the initial partial filing fee when funds become available. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, PUB. L. NO . 104-134, 110 STAT . 1321 (1996), the Court is required to dismiss any prisoner action brought under federal law if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). The Court must read Plaintiff s pro se complaint indulgently, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and accept Plaintiff s allegations as true, unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). Applying these standards, Plaintiff s action will be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Factual Allegations Plaintiff Lyonell Johnson presently is incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections at the Chippewa Correctional Facility. Plaintiff sues Joseph Micolo, Chief of the Kinross District Police Department. Plaintiff s claim appears to center around Defendant s allegedly false testimony during a preliminary hearing and bind over in connection with Plaintiff s probation violation. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant knowingly and deliberately as the lead arresting officer . . . verbally committed an extrinsic circumstance while under oath on September 16, 2013 during the requested scheduled preliminary examination held in the 91st District Court of Chippewa County Michigan, before the Honorable Chief Judge Elizabeth Church. (Compl., docket #1, Page ID#3.) Defendant testified that a bank employee advised him that four suspects entered the bank and cashed a check in the amount of $988.00. Plaintiff alleges that this was false testimony as the bank employee never told Defendant that four suspects entered the bank. Plaintiff alleges that he never entered the bank, he was never identified by a bank employee as one of the people who entered the bank, and that the preliminary examination and bind over were based on testimony alone as no physical evidence was produced. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant provided false and incriminating information to the Oakland County Probation agent Michael Tilley, who is not a defendant, concerning the criminal investigation involving Plaintiff which caused Plaintiff to incur a probation violation in 2013. Defendant falsely informed Tilley that Plaintiff used a fraudulent identification card to cash a fraudulent check. As relief Plaintiff seeks a criminal investigation and removal of Defendant as Kinross Township Chief of Police, criminal charges against Defendant and money damages. Discussion I. Failure to state a claim A complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it fails to give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. Bell Atl. Corp. -2- v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). While a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff s allegations must include more than labels and conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) ( Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice. ). The court must determine whether the complaint contains enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Although the plausibility standard is not equivalent to a probability requirement, . . . it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). [W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged but it has not show[n] that the pleader is entitled to relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quoting FED . R. CIV . P. 8(a)(2)); see also Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010) (holding that the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard applies to dismissals of prisoner cases on initial review under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the federal Constitution or laws and must show that the deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Dominguez v. Corr. Med. Servs., 555 F.3d 543, 549 (6th Cir. 2009). Because § 1983 is a method for vindicating federal rights, not a source of substantive rights itself, the first step in an action under § 1983 is to identify the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994). -3- As best as can be understood, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant provided false testimony which resulted in Plaintiff being detained for a probation violation and, presumably, sentenced for his original offense, and charged with, and convicted of, a new offense. Although Plaintiff does not expressly seek release from custody, were Plaintiff to prevail in this action he would have to demonstrate that Defendant gave false testimony, which would call into question the validity of his probation violation and sentence, and his new conviction and sentence. To the extent Plaintiff claims that his probation violation and sentence rest on Defendant s false testimony and that he never violated probation, he fails to state a claim cognizable under § 1983. A challenge to the fact or duration of confinement should be brought as a petition for habeas corpus and is not the proper subject of a civil rights action brought pursuant to § 1983. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484, 493 (1973) (the essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that custody and the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody). Likewise, to the extent Plaintiff claims that his new conviction rests on Defendant s false testimony, and that he did not commit the underlying offense, he fails to state a claim cognizable under § 1983. See id. Therefore, to the extent that Plaintiff s complaint challenges the fact or duration of his incarceration, it must be dismissed. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005) (stating that a state prisoner s § 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation) - no matter the relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no matter the target of the prisoner s suit (state conduct leading to conviction or internal prison proceedings) - if success in that action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration. ). Additionally, to the extent Plaintiff seeks injunctive, declaratory and monetary relief for alleged violations of Constitutional rights, his claim is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), which held that in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional -4- conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been [overturned]. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646 (1997) (emphasis in original). In Heck, the Supreme Court held that a state prisoner cannot make a cognizable claim under § 1983 for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or for harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid unless a prisoner shows that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Id. at 486-87 (footnote omitted). The holding in Heck has been extended to actions seeking injunctive or declaratory relief. See Edwards, 520 U.S. at 646-48 (declaratory relief); Clarke v. Stalder, 154 F.3d 186, 189-90 (5th Cir. 1998) (claim for injunctive relief intertwined with request for damages); Wilson v. Kinkela, No. 97-4035, 1998 WL 246401, at *1 (6th Cir. May 5, 1998) (injunctive relief). Plaintiff s allegations clearly call into question the validity of his probation violation conviction and his conviction based on the crime which resulted in his probation violation, as both convictions are based on Defendant s allegedly false testimony. Therefore, Plaintiff s action is barred under Heck until his convictions have been invalidated. Finally, although Plaintiff seeks to compel authorities to bring criminal charges against Defendant, he has no right to do so. A private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another. Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 63 (1986). Simply put, Plaintiff cannot compel a criminal prosecution of Defendant because private citizens, whether or not they are incarcerated, cannot compel a criminal prosecution of another. See Diamond, 476 U.S. at 64-65; Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973); Martin v. Koljonen, No. 03-2169, 2004 WL 445720, at *1 (6th Cir. Mar. 9, 2004). -5- Conclusion Having conducted the review required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Court determines that Plaintiff s action will be dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). The Court must next decide whether an appeal of this action would be in good faith within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 611 (6th Cir. 1997). For the same reasons that the Court dismisses the action, the Court discerns no good-faith basis for an appeal. Should Plaintiff appeal this decision, the Court will assess the $505.00 appellate filing fee pursuant to § 1915(b)(1), see McGore, 114 F.3d at 610-11, unless Plaintiff is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis, e.g., by the three-strikes rule of § 1915(g). If he is barred, he will be required to pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee in one lump sum. This is a dismissal as described by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). A Judgment consistent with this Opinion will be entered. Dated: September 17, 2014 /s/ Gordon J. Quist GORDON J. QUIST UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -6-
]]>
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.
