United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
Corbett O'Meara United States District Judge
Steven James-El is presently confined at the Carson
Correctional Facility in Carson City, Michigan. He has filed
a pro se complaint challenging the conduct of police
officers during his arrest in connection with the conviction
for which he is currently incarcerated. Plaintiff is
proceeding without prepayment of the filing fee in accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The Court dismisses
Plaintiff's complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2),  because Plaintiff's claims are barred
by Heck v. Humprhey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).
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.
8(a)(2)). The notice pleading standard requires more than the
bare assertion of legal conclusions or “an unadorned,
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. at 1949
(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).
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).
complaint concerns the circumstances surrounding his arrest
in Detroit on October 5, 2014. Following the arrest and a
jury trial, he was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon,
felon in possession of a firearm, possession of a firearm
during the commission of a felony, and unlawful possession of
marijuana. He names as defendants the Detroit Police
Department and the four police officers involved in his
arrest. Plaintiff alleges that defendants Zeolla,
Harnphanich, and Banks manufactured evidence, the officers
lacked probable cause to arrest him, destroyed the patrol car
video evidence, and that the Detroit Police Department failed
to properly train its staff.
claims necessarily challenge the validity of his related
criminal convictions. A claim under § 1983 is an
appropriate remedy for a state prisoner challenging a
condition of his imprisonment. See Preiser v.
Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499 (1973). In Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), the Supreme Court
established that a state prisoner does not state a cognizable
civil rights claim challenging his imprisonment if a ruling
on his claim would necessarily render his continuing
confinement invalid, until and unless the reason for his
continued confinement has been reversed on direct appeal,
called into question by a federal court's issuance of a
writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, or
otherwise invalidated. Id. at 486-87. Because
Plaintiff has not achieved a favorable termination of his
criminal case, this complaint is barred by Heck.
reasons stated, the Court concludes that the complaint fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
FURTHER ORDERED, that if Plaintiff elects to appeal this
decision, he may not proceed without prepayment of the fees
and costs on appeal because an appeal would be frivolous and
could not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(3); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438,