United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING THE
H. CLELAND, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter has come before the court on plaintiff Dennis Wayne
Brooks' pro se civil rights complaint under 42
U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986. (Dkt. #1.)
Plaintiff is a state prisoner at West Shoreline Correctional
Facility in Muskegon, Michigan.
Defendants are: Andrew Carlson, a detective for the City of
Saginaw, Michigan; Nancy Beagle, a parole and probation
agent; Richard A. Riebschlegea, a parole and probation
supervisor for the State of Michigan; Robert L. Kaczmarek, a
state judge in Saginaw, Michigan; Floyd P. Kloc, a licensed
attorney in Michigan; and Latashia Jackson, Tracy Boswell,
Lonnae Jackson, Ospira Cooper, and Virgil Sangster, who are
private citizens residing in Michigan. Plaintiff sues the
Defendants in their personal and official capacities for
statement of facts, Plaintiff alleges that the five private
citizens named as Defendants in this action have accused him
of criminal sexual conduct. According to him, Latashia
Jackson and Tracy Boswell have said that he sexually
penetrated them when they were children, and Defendant Virgil
Sangster has said that he saw Plaintiff engaging in sexual
activity with Ms. Boswell. Additionally, he alleges that
Lonnae Jackson and Ospira Cooper have accused Plaintiff of
sexually abusing them when they were teenagers.
claims that the three-year statute of limitations for
criminal sexual conduct expired before he was charged with
the crime and that retroactive application of a recent law
which revives time-barred prosecutions violated his rights
under the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution.
Plaintiff also claims that the defendants provided false
statements about him, gave perjured testimony, introduced
false evidence against him, and conspired to convict him in
violation of his right to due process. The court has granted
Plaintiff permission to proceed without prepaying the fees
and costs for this action. (Dkt. #3.)
the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, federal district
courts must screen an indigent prisoner's complaint and
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)(B) 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, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989). “A complaint is subject to dismissal
for failure to state a claim if the allegations, taken as
true, show the plaintiff is not entitled to relief.”
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007).
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 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
“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.” Id. (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
to prevail on a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must
prove two elements: “(1) that he or she was deprived of
a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United
States; and (2) that the deprivation was caused by a person
acting under color of law.” Robertson v.
Lucas, 753 F.3d 606, 614 (6th Cir. 2014).
Heck v. Humphrey
allegations are frivolous and fail to state a claim because
they challenge his state conviction and sentence of seven and
a half to fifteen years in prison for criminal sexual
conduct. In Heck v. Humphrey, the Supreme Court
to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction
or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose
unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a
§ 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or
sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by
executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal
authorized to make such determination, or called into
question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of
habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A claim for ...