United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
Page Hood Chief Judge, United States District Court
matter is pending before the Court on the pro se
civil rights complaint filed by Scott Borkowski. Plaintiff,
an inmate in the custody of the Michigan Department of
Corrections, alleges his legal property has been confiscated
and he has been denied access to the law library. He names a
single defendant, the Michigan Reformatory in Ionia Michigan,
where he was incarcerated prior to his transfer to another
facility. He seeks injunctive relief. For the reasons that
follow, the complaint will be dismissed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B), for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.
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 Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley
v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957) and Fed.R.Civ.P.
has been granted leave to proceed without prepayment of the
filing fee for this action due to her indigence. 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). A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an
arguable basis in law or in fact. Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
state a federal civil rights claim, a plaintiff must allege
(1) the deprivation 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, 98 S.Ct. 1729 (1978). A pro se
civil rights complaint is to be construed liberally.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).
names a single defendant, the Michigan Reformatory. To state
a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that the
claimed federal violation was committed by a person acting
under color of state law. Flagg Bros., 436 U.S. at
155-57. A state prison facility is not a person or legal
entity capable of being sued under § 1983. See Poole
v. Michigan Reformatory, No. 09-cv-13093, 2009 WL
2960412, *1 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 11, 2009) (holding that prison
facilities are not “persons” or legal entities
subject to suit under § 1983); McGlone v. Warren
Correctional Institution, No. 1:13-cv-126, 2013 WL
1563265, *3 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 12, 2013) (same).
Plaintiff fails to satisfy the minimal pleading requirements
because 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, 200 WL 1800569,
at *2 (6th Cir. Nov. 30, 2000) (requiring allegations of
personal involvement against each defendant). Plaintiff fails
to attribute any factual allegations against a particular
defendant. Accordingly, the complaint fails to satisfy the
minimal pleading requirements.
reasons stated, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B).
This dismissal is without prejudice to the filing of a new
complaint naming one or more proper defendnats. The Court
also concludes that an appeal from this order would be
frivolous and cannot ...