United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
COHN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a pro se civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. As best as can be gleaned from the complaint, Michigan
prisoner Rommel Reed challenges his state criminal
proceedings and asserts that he is being denied state records
relevant to those proceedings. He names Michigan State Troopers
Rene Gonzalez and Robert Prause, Jackson County Detective
Sergio Garcia, and Jackson County Assistant Prosecutor Daniel
Schwalm as defendants in their personal capacities. He seeks
injunctive relief and monetary damages. The Court has granted
the plaintiff leave to proceed without prepayment of the
filing fee for this action. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(1). For the reasons that follow, the complaint will
be dismissed for failure to state a viable claim under §
Court must dismiss a 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). The Court is similarly required
to dismiss a complaint seeking redress against government
entities, officers, and employees which 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. A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an
arguable basis in law or in fact. Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992); Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A pro se
civil rights complaint is to be construed liberally.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).
state a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a
plaintiff must allege that: (1) he or she 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); Harris v. Circleville, 583 F.3d 356,
364 (6th Cir. 2009).
Criminal Proceedings Claim
appears, in part, to challenge his state criminal
proceedings. To the extent that he does, his claim must be
dismissed because it is not a proper claim under § 1983.
Although a claim under § 1983 can be brought by a state
prisoner challenging a condition of his imprisonment,
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499 (1973), it
cannot be brought to challenge the validity of his
confinement. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87
if plaintiff were to prevail on his claim that this state
criminal proceedings were invalid, his drug convictions and
related confinement would be called into question. Thus, his
claim is barred by Heck and must be dismissed.
Access to Records
also appears to assert that he is being denied records from
his state criminal proceedings in violation of his due
process rights. To the extent that plaintiff claims a
violation of the Michigan Freedom of Information Act,
Michigan Court Rule 6.433, or any other provision of state
law, he fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. It is well-settled that such state law violations
are not a proper basis for relief under § 1983.
Pyles v. Raisor, 60 F.3d 1211, 1215 (6th Cir.1995).
Moreover, there is no general due process right of access to
state court records on collateral review in criminal
proceedings. See, e.g., United States v. MacCollum,
426 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1976) (no constitutional right to
transcripts on collateral review of a conviction).
liberally construing plaintiff's claim as a denial of
access to the courts, he is still not entitled to relief.
Prisoners, including indigent prisoners, have a
constitutional right of access to the courts which the states
have a duty to protect. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S.
817, 821-25 (1977). However, a prisoner's right of access
to the courts is limited to direct criminal appeals, habeas
corpus applications, and civil rights claims challenging the
conditions of confinement. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S.
343, 355 (1996); Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d
378, 391 (6th Cir. 1999).
state a §1983 claim for the denial of access to the
courts, plaintiff must make some showing of prejudice or
actual injury as a result of the challenged conduct.
Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351; Harbin-Bey v.
Rutter, 420 F.3d 571, 578 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing
Jackson v. Gill, 92 F. App'x 171, 173 (6th Cir.
2004)). Examples of actual prejudice include having a case
dismissed, being unable to file a complaint, and missing a
court-imposed deadline. Harbin-Bey, 420 F.3d at 578.
Additionally, plaintiff must allege that the deprivation of
his rights was the result of intentional conduct to state
such a claim. Sims v. Landrum, 170 F. App'x 954,
957 (6th Cir. 2006); Wojnicz v. Davis, 80 F.
App'x 382, ...