United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS (Dkts. 9, 10) AND SUMMARILY DISMISSING HIS COMPLAINT (Dkt. 1)
MARK A. GOLDSMITH, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the Court's own review of Plaintiff Shawn Bradley's pro se civil complaint, which he filed on December 3, 2014. At that time, Plaintiff was incarcerated at Pugsley Correctional Facility in Kingsley, Michigan. The Defendants are the Michigan Department of Corrections, parole agent Bridgette Avolio, and Lisa Badalamenti, who is Avolio's supervisor.
Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that Avolio falsely charged him with tampering with his tether on March 6, 2014. Compl. at 1-2 (Dkt. 1). Plaintiff provided purported statements from his employer, roommate, and minister, who maintained that they were with Plaintiff at various times on March 6, 2014, and that Plaintiff did not tamper with his tether while he was with them. Nevertheless, taking the allegations in Plaintiff's civil rights complaint as true, Badalamenti insisted on conducting her own investigation. She and Avolio ultimately recommended that Plaintiff's parole be revoked. Badalamenti refused to change the recommendation even though Plaintiff's parole officer, Brad Meinsner, said the problem was that Plaintiff's tether was too loose on March 6, 2014. Id. at 1-2. The Michigan Department of Corrections upheld the recommendation to revoke Plaintiff's parole, id. at 4, and, although Plaintiff was scheduled to be taken off his tether on June 5, 2014, he was sent to prison for over eight months due to the revocation of his parole status. Id. at 1, 4.
Records maintained by the Michigan Department of Corrections on its official website indicate that Plaintiff was subsequently released on parole on January 7, 2015. See mdocweb.state.mi.us. However, he was still in custody when he filed this complaint, in which he seeks release from custody without a tether and $800, 000 in money damages for false incarceration.
In a motion filed on March 16, 2015, Plaintiff states that, on or about February 4, 2015, he reported to the Parole Office and was then placed under arrest and shackled. After an hour or more, he was released, apparently after it was determined that he had been mistakenly arrested. Mot. at 3-4 (Dkt. 9). Due to that incident, and for other reasons, Plaintiff seeks to increase his initial request for damages to $1, 230, 000. Additionally, he wants Badalamenti removed as his parole supervisor and both Avolio and Badalamenti barred from being represented by attorneys for the State. He also wants the Defendants to respond to his complaint. Id. at 2-3.
Finally, in a motion filed on April 22, 2015, Plaintiff alleges that he made a perfect transition into society and was working for Michigan Fence Company on April 14, 2015, when he was arrested for an alleged parole violation and then sent to the Detroit Re-entry Center, which is a facility operated by the Michigan Department of Corrections. Plaintiff seeks release from state custody and to have Badalamenti and a Ms. Jackson removed as his supervisor and parole agent.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
The Court holds pro se complaints to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, and must liberally construe them. Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir. 2011) (citing Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 712 (6th Cir. 2004)). Because Plaintiff styled his pleading as a civil rights complaint, the Court liberally construes the pleading as a complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Section 1983... creates a private right of action to vindicate violations of "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" of the United States. Under the terms of the statute, "[e]very person' who acts under color of state law to deprive another of a constitutional right [is] answerable to that person in a suit for damages." Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 417, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1983).
Rehberg v. Paulk, 132 S.Ct. 1497, 1501-1502 (2012).
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 requires federal district courts to screen a prisoner's complaint and to dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A; Flanory v. Bonn, 604 F.3d 249, 252 (6th Cir. 2010); Smith v. Campbell, 250 F.3d 1032, 1036 (6th Cir. 2001). A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, Sr., 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
"In determining whether a prisoner has failed to state a claim, [courts] construe his complaint in the light most favorable to him, accept his factual allegations as true, and determine whether he can prove any set of facts that would entitle him to relief." Harbin-Bey v. Rutter, 420 F.3d 571, 575 (6th Cir. 2005). While a complaint "does not need detailed factual allegations, " the "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (footnote and citations omitted). In other words, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting ...