The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Bernard A. Friedman United States District Judge
OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
The Court has before it Plaintiff Jakesha Davis' pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§ 1983. Plaintiff is a state prisoner currently confined at the Huron Valley Women's Complex in Ypsilanti, Michigan. Having reviewed plaintiff's complaint, the Court dismisses it with prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Plaintiff has been allowed to proceed without prepayment of fees. See 28 § U.S.C. 1915(a); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F. 3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997). However, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) states:
Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that:
(B) the action or appeal:
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). Sua sponte dismissal is appropriate if the complaint lacks an arguable basis when filed. McGore, 114 F. 3d at 612; Goodell v. Anthony, 157 F. Supp. 2d 796, 799 (E.D. Mich. 2001).
To establish a prima facie case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a civil rights plaintiff must establish that: (1) the defendant acted under color of state law; and (2) the offending conduct deprived the plaintiff of rights secured by federal law. Bloch v. Ribar, 156 F. 3d 673, 677 (6th Cir. 1998)(citing Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981)). "If a plaintiff fails to make a showing on any essential element of a § 1983 claim, it must fail." Redding v. St. Reward, 241 F. 3d 530, 532 (6th Cir. 2001).
Plaintiff alleges that she was stopped and arrested for an armed robbery in the City of Eastpointe, Michigan on April 7, 2008. Plaintiff contends that the defendant, a male police officer with the Eastpointe Police Department, violated her constitutional rights by searching her subsequent to her arrest, arguing that as a female suspect she should have been searched by a female police officer. Plaintiff further claims that she was never told that she was formally under arrest and was never informed of the reasons for her arrest until her arraignment. Plaintiff finally alleges that the defendant violated her constitutional rights by taping her without her knowledge or consent. Although plaintiff does not indicate whether she was ultimately convicted of any charges arising from this incident, the Michigan Department of Corrections' Offender Tracking Information System (OTIS), which this Court is permitted to take judicial notice of, See Ward v. Wolfenbarger,323 F. Supp. 2d 818, 821, n. 3 (E.D. Mich. 2004), indicates ...