McMullen #173764 v. Michigan Department of Corrections et al, No. 1:2013cv00724 - Document 8 (W.D. Mich. 2013)
Court Description: OPINION; Judgment to issue; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION RONALD McMULLEN, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:13-cv-724 v. Honorable Janet T. Neff MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al., Defendants. ____________________________________/ 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. 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 Plaintiif, Ronald McMullen, is a state prisoner presently incarcerated at the Ingham County Jail (ICJ). He sues the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) and the ICJ.1 Plaintiff alleges that he was sentenced to 2 years to MDOC [and MDOC] sent [him] to Ingham County Jail to serve his sentence. (docket #1, Page ID#4). Plaintiff contends that ICJ is violating his due process rights by not allowing him to use the law library, not providing medical care, not allowing him to participate in recreational activities and not allowing him to receive mail, other than postcards. Plaintiff seeks an order from this Court directing Defendants to send him back where [he] should be and . . . to answer for the wrong they have done. (docket #1, Page ID##4-5). Discussion I. Legal Standard 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. 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 1 Plaintiff attaches a long list of additional inmates who, ostensibly, wish to join in Plaintiff s lawsuit. Plaintiff lacks standing to assert the constitutional rights of other inmates. Newsom v Norris, 888 F.2d 371, 381 (6th Cir. 1989); Raines v. Goedde, No. 92-3120, 1992 WL 188120, at *2 (6th Cir. 1992). Alternatively, and construing the complaint broadly, the Court considers Plaintiff s identification of multiple additional plaintiff-inmates, as a request for class certification. For a case to proceed as a class action, the court must be satisfied on a number of grounds, including the adequacy of class representation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). It is well established that pro se litigants are inappropriate representatives of the interests of others. See Garrison v. Mich. Dep't of Corr., 333 F. App x 914, 919 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975)); see also Dodson v. Wilkinson, 304 F. App x 434, 438 (6th Cir. 2008); Ziegler v. Michigan, 59 F. App x 622, 624 (6th Cir. 2003); Palasty v. Hawk, 15 F. App x 197, 200 (6th Cir. 2001); Howard v. Dougan, No. 99-2232, 2000 WL 876770, at *1 (6th Cir. June 23, 2000); Ballard v. Campbell, No. 98-6156, 1999 WL 777435, at *1 (6th Cir. Sept. 21, 1999); Marr v. Mich., No. 95-1794, 1996 WL 205582, at * 1 (6th Cir. April 25, 1996). Accordingly, because Plaintiff is an incarcerated, pro se litigant, the Court finds that he is not an appropriate representative of a class. Therefore, the Court will deny Plaintiff s request for class certification. -2- 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- II. Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim Against the MDOC Plaintiff may not maintain a § 1983 action against the MDOC. An express requirement of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is that the defendant be a person. See Monell v. Dep t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Neither a prison nor a state corrections department is a person within the meaning of § 1983. Will v. Mich. Dep t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989). Furthermore, Plaintiff s claim against the MDOC is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978). That amendment prohibits suits in federal court against the state or any of its agencies or departments. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Haldermann, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984). A state s Eleventh Amendment immunity is in the nature of a jurisdictional defense and may be raised on the court s own motion. Estate of Ritter v. Univ. of Mich., 851 F.2d 846, 851 (6th Cir. 1988). The Supreme Court has squarely held that the Eleventh Amendment bars federal suits against state departments of corrections. Alabama, 438 U.S. at 782. The MDOC is therefore not subject to a § 1983 action. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against the MDOC. III. Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim Against the ICJ Plaintiff sues the ICJ. The ICJ is a building, not an entity capable of being sued in its own right. However, construing Plaintiff s pro se complaint with all required liberality, Haines, 404 U.S. at 520, the Court assumes that Plaintiff intended to sue Ingham County. Ingham County may not be held vicariously liable for the actions of its employees under § 1983. See Connick v. Thompson, 131 S. Ct. 1350, 1359 (2011); City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 392 (1989); Monell, 436 U.S. at 694. Instead, a county is liable only when its official policy or custom causes the injury, regardless of the form of relief sought by the plaintiff. Los Angeles Cnty. v. Humphries, 131 S. Ct. 447, 453-54 (2010) (citing Monell, 436 U.S. at 694). In considering a municipal liability -4- claim, the Court must first determine whether a plaintiff has set forth sufficient facts from which the existence of a custom or policy could be inferred. Doe v. Claiborne Cnty., 103 F.3d 495, 509 (6th Cir. 1996). The policy or custom must be the moving force behind the constitutional injury, and a plaintiff must identify the policy, connect the policy to the governmental entity and show that the particular injury was incurred because of the execution of that policy. Turner v. City of Taylor, 412 F.3d 629, 639 (6th Cir. 2005); Alkire v. Irving, 330 F.3d 802, 815 (6th Cir. 2003); Doe, 103 F.3d at 508-509. The policy may be set by the government s lawmakers, or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy. McMillian v. Monroe Cnty., 520 U.S. 781, 784-85 (1997) (quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at 694.) It is the court s task to identify those officials or governmental bodies who speak with final policymaking authority for the local governmental actor concerning the action alleged to have caused the particular constitutional or statutory violation at issue. McMillian, 520 U.S. at 784-5 (quoting Jett v. Dallas Independent Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701, 737 (1989). The Board of Commissioners is the policymaker for Ingham County. Plaintiff's action fails at the first step because he has not identified a policy adopted by the Ingham County Board of Commissioners that violated his constitutional rights. Plaintiff also has not identified a custom. The Sixth Circuit has explained that: a custom for purposes of Monell liability must be so permanent and well settled as to constitute a custom or usage with the force of law. In turn, the notion of law must include [d]eeply embedded traditional ways of carrying out state policy. It must reflect a course of action deliberately chosen from among various alternatives. In short, a custom is a legal institution not memorialized by written law. Doe, 103 F.3d at 507 (citations and quotations omitted). Plaintiff has not alleged that the Ingham County Board of Commissioners had a custom that violated his constitutional rights. -5- In summary, Plaintiff has failed to allege that the Ingham County Board of Commissioners, as the policymaker for Ingham County, had a policy or custom that caused Plaintiff to be deprived of a constitutional right. Where a plaintiff fails to allege that a policy or custom existed, dismissal of the action for failure to state a claim is appropriate. Rayford v. City of Toledo, No. 86-3260, 1987 WL 36283, at *1 (6th Cir. 1987); see also Bilder v. City of Akron, No. 92-4310, 1993 WL 394595, at *2 (6th Cir. 1993) (affirming dismissal of § 1983 action when plaintiff allegation of policy or custom was conclusory, and plaintiff failed to allege facts tending to support the allegation). Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Ingham County. 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 $455.00 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 $455.00 appellate filing fee in one lump sum. This is a dismissal as described by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). -6- A Judgment consistent with this Opinion will be entered. Dated: August 2, 2013 /s/ Janet T. Neff Janet T. Neff United States District Judge -7-
]]>
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.
