Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Burke v. Furtado

United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division

March 8, 2017

ELIJAH BURKE, Plaintiff,
v.
GEORGE WILLIAMS G. FURTADO, Defendant.

          OPINION

          Honorable Janet T. Neff, Judge

         This is an action brought by a state prisoner. The Court has granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996), the Court is required to dismiss any prisoner action if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A. The Court must read Plaintiff's pro se complaint indulgently, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and accept Plaintiff's allegations as true, unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). Applying these standards, Plaintiff's action will be dismissed as frivolous, because there is no possible ground upon which a reasoned argument can be made to sustain jurisdiction.

         Factual Allegations

         Plaintiff Elijah Burke is presently incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections at the Lakeland Correctional Facility in Coldwater, Michigan. He is serving a life sentence of imprisonment for first-degree murder. Plaintiff is suing George Williams G. Furtado, an attorney, for malpractice. Defendant Furtado represented Plaintiff in a prisoner civil rights action that Plaintiff previously litigated in this Court. See Burke v. Lawrence, Case No. 1:11-cv-1044 (W.D. Mich.).

         Plaintiff asked the Court to appoint counsel to assist him in proceeding to trial in the prior civil rights action. (Mot. for Appointment of Counsel, Case No. 1:11-cv-1044, PageID.291.) The Court appointed Defendant by order entered April 7, 2014. (Ord., Case No. 1:11-cv-1044, PageID.334.) Plaintiff's claim that the food service director, D. Lawrence, retaliated against him by removing him from his job in violation of the First Amendment was tried before a jury. The jury determined that the food service director had not retaliated against Plaintiff. (Jury Verdict, Case No. 1:11-cv-1044, PageID.509.)

         After the verdict, Plaintiff filed a pro se motion for new trial and alleged that his counsel had been ineffective. (Mot. and Notice, Case No. 1:11-cv-1044, PageID.513-523.) Counsel took that as a breakdown in the attorney/client relationship, a relationship that was expected to end following trial anyway per the engagement letter, and sought leave to withdraw. (Mot. to Withdraw, Case No. 1:11-cv-1044, PageID.525-527.) The Court granted that relief. (Ord., Case No. 1:11-cv-1044, PageID.531.) Plaintiff continued to pursue his claims through appeals and through filings in this Court under Case No. 1:11-cv-1044 though November of 2016 to no avail.

         Plaintiff then filed a new action against D. Lawrence in this Court, alleging that she had slandered and defamed him when she testified at the trial in the prior civil rights action. Burke v. Lawrence, Case No. 1:16-cv-1376 (W.D. Mich.) (Affidavit, Case No. 1:16-cv-1376, PageID.1-3.) On January 10, 2017, the Court dismissed that action for failure to state a claim. (Op. and J., Case No. 1:16-cv-1376, PageID.27-31.) Two weeks later, Plaintiff filed this action.

         Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to object to the testimony of D. Lawrence at the trial in the prior civil rights action. Essentially, Plaintiff complains that through that testimony the jury was notified that Plaintiff was imprisoned for murder and, for that reason, became prejudiced against him. Defendant's failure to object, Plaintiff contends, is attorney malpractice under state law.

         Plaintiff seeks an award of actual and exemplary damages against Defendant.

         Discussion

         I. Jurisdiction

         “Subject matter jurisdiction is always a threshold determination.” American Telecom Co., L.L.C. v. Republic of Lebanon, 501 F.3d 534, 537 (6th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff makes no allegations in support of this Court's jurisdiction over his claims and none is apparent from the claim he raises.

         This Court has original diversity jurisdiction over a suit between citizens of different states where the matter in controversy exceed the sum or value of $75, 000 exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Plaintiff alleges, however, that he and Defendant are residents of Michigan. (Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.1.)

         This Court also has original jurisdiction over “civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. To determine whether a case arises under federal law, the Court must assess whether a federal question appears in Plaintiff's statement of his claim. Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 207 (2004). Plaintiff's allegations ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.