Johnson v. Robinson et al, No. 2:2015cv12952 - Document 7 (E.D. Mich. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER of Summary Dismissal. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (CPic)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Johnson v. Robinson et al Doc. 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION CHARON JOHNSON, Case Number: 2:15-CV-12952 HON. ARTHUR J. TARNOW Plaintiff, v. MARCUS ROBINSON, ET AL., Defendant. / OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL I. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Charon Johnson’s pro se civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding without prepayment of the filing fee in this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Plaintiff’s claims relate to the revocation of his parole. He seeks monetary relief. For the reasons which follow, the complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. II. 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,” 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, Dockets.Justia.com 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, thedefendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). 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). Similarly, the Court is required to dismiss a complaint seeking redress against government entities, officers, and employees that it finds to be frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(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, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) he was deprived of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the federal Constitution or laws of 2 the United States, and (2) the deprivation was 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). III. Plaintiff’s complaint challenges the revocation of his parole. He states that he was released to parole on December 4, 2014, after serving a three year term of imprisonment for armed robbery. Three months later, he was charged with violating his parole when a firearm was found at his residence. Plaintiff was found guilty and his parole revoked. Plaintiff argues that he lived in a two-family home and the firearm was not found in the portion of the home where he lived. He claims to have no knowledge of the firearm. The complaint necessarily challenges the validity of the parole revocation. A claim under § 1983 is an appropriate remedy for a state prisoner challenging a condition of his imprisonment. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499 (1973). In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), the Supreme Court established that a state prisoner does not state a cognizable civil rights claim challenging his imprisonment if a ruling on his claim would necessarily render his continuing confinement invalid, until and unless the reason for his continued confinement has been reversed on direct appeal, called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, or otherwise invalidated. Id. at 486-87. Because Plaintiff has not achieved a favorable termination of his criminal case, this complaint is barred by Heck. 3 Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. SO ORDERED. S/Arthur J. Tarnow Arthur J. Tarnow Senior United States District Judge Dated: January 5, 2016 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon parties/counsel of record on January 5, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. S/Catherine A. Pickles Judicial Assistant 4
]]>
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.
