United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL AND DIRECTING
E. Rosen United States District Judge.
before the Court is Plaintiff Gary Baldwin'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 alleges that he was deprived of a wheelchair while
walking from the dining hall to his cell and that he suffered
additional injury to his already damaged hip as a result.
Plaintiff seeks monetary relief. For the reasons which
follow, the Court will dismiss defendants Chapman, Siles,
Leslie, and Russell pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2),
because Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted against these defendants.
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, 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
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).
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
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 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).
argues that defendants violated his Eighth Amendment right to
be free from cruel and unusual punishment when, on February
8, 2016, he was forced to walk without the aid of his
wheelchair from the dining hall to his cell. He alleges that
this caused damage to his left hip and femur.
names as a defendant deputy warden Willis Chapman. However,
he makes no specific allegations against Chapman. Basic
pleading requirements dictate that a plaintiff must attribute
factual allegations to particular defendants. See
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (holding that, in order to
state a claim, Plaintiff must make sufficient allegations to
give a defendant fair notice of the claim); Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a). A complaint must allege each defendant's personal
involvement with the alleged violation of federal rights.
See Frazier v. Michigan, 41 F. App'x 762, 764
(6th Cir. 2002) (dismissing claims where complaint did not
allege which of the named defendants were personally involved
in or responsible for each alleged violation of rights);
Griffin v. Montgomery, No. 00-3402, 2000 WL 1800569,
at *2 (6th Cir. Nov. 30, 2000) (requiring allegations of
personal involvement against each defendant). Moreover,
conclusory allegations are insufficient to state a civil
rights claim under § 1983. See, e.g ., Lanier v.
Bryant, 332 F.3d 999, 1007 (6th Cir.2003). Plaintiff
fails to allege Chapman's particular, alleged involvement
in his case, and he will be dismissed.
claims against defendants Siles, Leslie, and Russell are
based upon their responses to grievances he filed concerning
being forced to walk without the use of his wheelchair. The
First Amendment guarantees “the right of the people ...
to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.” U.S. Const. amend. I. However, while a
prisoner has a First Amendment right to file grievances
against prison officials, see Herron v. Harrison,
203 F.3d 410, 415 (6th Cir. 2000), the First Amendment does
not impose an affirmative obligation on the government to
consider, respond to, or grant any relief on a citizen's
petition for redress of grievances. See Smith v. Arkansas
State Highway Employees, Local 1315, 441 U.S. 463,
464-65 (1979); Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479
(6th Cir. 1999) (“A citizen's right to petition the
government does not guarantee a response to the petition or
the right to compel government officials to act on or adopt a
a prisoner does not have a constitutionally-protected
interest in an inmate grievance procedure or the right to an
effective procedure. See e.g., Walker v. Michigan
Dep't of Corrections, 128 F. App'x 441, 445 (6th
Cir. 2005); Argue v. Hofmeyer, 80 F. App'x 427,
430 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing cases). Thus, Plaintiff's
claim that Siles, Leslie, and Russell failed to properly or
adequately respond to his grievances fails to state a claim
on which relief may be granted. See Carlton v.
Jondreau, 76 F. App'x 642, 644 (6th Cir. 2003)
(prisoner failed to state a claim based upon defendant's
failure to investigate grievance); Proctor v.
Applegate, 661 F.Supp.2d 743, 766-67 (E.D. Mich. 2009)
(Borman, J., adopting magistrate judge's report and
recommendation citing cases). Defendants Siles, Leslie, and
Russell will be dismissed.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims
against defendants Chapman, Siles, Leslie, and Russell are
dismissed for failure to state a ...