United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Jonathan Robinson, Plaintiff, Pro Se.
Wickersham, Defendant, represented by John A. Schapka, Macomb
County Corporation Counsel Office.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT DEFENDANTS'
MOTION TO DISMISS [R. 12]
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD, Magistrate Judge.
Jonathon Walter Robinson Bey, proceeding pro se,
brings this action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Â§ 1983, alleging
violations of his constitutional rights while he was detained
at Macomb County Jail. Defendants State of Michigan and
Macomb County Jail were previously dismissed from this case.
[R. 9]. The only issue remaining is whether Macomb County
Sheriff Anthony Wickersham may be held liable for failure to
adequately supervise, control, or train subordinates. [
See R. 9, PgID 19-20]. Wickersham has filed a motion
to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). [R. 12]. Because Robinson Bey fails to state a
plausible claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court
RECOMMENDS that Wickersham's motion to dismiss [R. 12] be
GRANTED and the complaint be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Bey's allegations arise out of several incidents that
took place following his arrest in 2015. On July 14, 2015,
Robinson Bey was pulled over for speeding, allegedly beaten,
and then detained for driving a vehicle with a suspended
license and "assaulting and obstructing an
officer." [R. 13, PgID 1-2]. He was taken to Macomb
County Jail where he allegedly suffered an additional beating
inflicted by an "unknown subject, " whom Robinson
Bey later clarified was a fellow inmate. [R. 1, PgID 1; R.
13, PgID 2].
Bey claims in his response to the motion to dismiss that he
sent Sheriff Wickersham three letters while he was
detained. [R. 13, PgID 39]. Robinson Bey says
that, in the first letter, he demanded that he be released
because he was a Moor and Wickersham had no legal right to
detain him. [ Id. at PgID 39-40]. He states that, in
the second letter, he requested medical treatment for a
swollen mouth and broken tooth that he sustained during the
assault by an unknown inmate. [ Id. at PgID 40]. He
claims that, after a span of eight days, he was seen by a
medical doctor, but he was not prescribed pain medication and
his injuries were not attended to by a dentist as he
requested. [ Id. ]. According to Robinson Bey, he
again demanded in his final letter that Wickersham release
him. [ Id. ]. He alleges that Wickersham did not
respond to these letters. [ Id. ].
Bey alleges that, during his incarceration, several inmates
at Macomb County Jail died after being attacked or denied
medical care. [R. 1, PgID 2; R. 13, PgID 41]. He claims that
these reports, compounded by his alleged mistreatment, led
him to fear for his life. [ Id. ]. Robinson Bey also
alleges that he was treated inhumanely, and verbally and
mentally abused while detained at Macomb County Jail. [R. 1;
R. 13, PgID 6].
argues that Robinson Bey fails to allege any particularized
factual allegations that would allow for a claim upon which
relief may be granted, and that this case should be dismissed
with prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). [R. 12]. The Court
motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) tests a
complaint's legal sufficiency. Although the federal rules
only require that a complaint contain a "short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief, " see Rule 8(a)(2), the statement of
the claim must be plausible. Indeed, "[t]o survive a
motion to dismiss, 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 Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). The
Iqbal Court explained, "[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."
deciding whether a plaintiff has set forth a
"plausible" claim, the Court must construe the
complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and
accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations.
Id . However, legal conclusions need not be accepted
as true. "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause
of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. While the
Court accords some leniency to pleadings drafted by pro
se litigants, "[t]he leniency granted to pro se
[litigants]... is not boundless." Martin v.
Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 714 (6th Cir. 2004). ...