United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING THE CIVIL RIGHTS
COMPLAINT, DENYING THE MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER, AND CONCLUDING THAT AN APPEAL CANNOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD
F. COX SEAN F. COX U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
County Jail inmate Anthony Burton ("Plaintiff) has filed
a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against the United States Court of
America, as well as a motion for a temporary restraining
order. Because Plaintiff names the federal government as the
sole defendant in this action, the Court construes his
complaint as one brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971). In his complaint, Plaintiff asserts that
the defendant failed to provide him with adequate mental
health services upon his release from federal prison. He
seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. The Court has
granted Plaintiff leave to proceed without prepayment of the
filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Having
reviewed the complaint, the Court concludes that it must be
dismissed. The Court also concludes that an appeal cannot be
taken in good faith.
the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110
Stat. 1321 (1996) ("PLRA"), the Court is required
to sua sponte dismiss an mforma pauperis
complaint before service 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 relief from
a defendant who is immune from suit. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A. A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an
arguable basis either in law or in fact. Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992); Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
state a federal civil rights claim, a plaintiff must show
that: (1) the defendant is a person who acted under color of
state or federal law, and (2) the defendant's conduct
deprived the plaintiff of a federal right, privilege, or
immunity. Flagg Bros. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149,
155-57 (1978); Harris v. Circleville, 583 F.3d 356,
364 (6th Cir. 2009). Apro se civil rights complaint
is to be construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404
U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Jones v. Duncan, 840 F.2d
359, 361 (6th Cir. 1988). Despite this liberal pleading
standard, the Court finds that the complaint is subject to
complaint against the United States Government is subject to
dismissal because "[a]b sent a waiver, sovereign
immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from
suit." Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 510
U.S. 471, 475 (1994); see also United States v. White
Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465, 472 (2003). Indeed,
it is "axiomatic that the United States may not be sued
without its consent and that the existence of consent is a
prerequisite for jurisdiction." United States v.
Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983). The plaintiff bears
the burden of identifying a waiver of sovereign immunity.
Reetz v. United States, 224 F.3d 794, 795 (6th Cir.
2000). The United States has not waived its sovereign
immunity for Bivens claims asserted against the
United States Government, its agencies, or its employees in
their official capacities. Federal Deposit Ins.
Corp., 510 U.S. at 484-86; Berger v. Pierce,
933 F.2d 393, 397 (6th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff fails to show
that the United States Government has waived sovereign
immunity for this action. His complaint against the United
States of America is thus subject to dismissal on the basis
reasons stated, the Court concludes that Plaintiff cannot
proceed with this action because the defendant United States
of America is entitled to sovereign immunity. Accordingly,
the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE his civil
rights complaint. Given this determination, the Court
DENIES his motion for a temporary
restraining order. Lastly, the Court concludes that an appeal
from this order cannot be taken in good faith. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Coppedge v. United
States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962).
IS SO ORDERED
hereby certify that on June 12, 2017, the foregoing document
was served on counsel of record via electronic means and upon
Anthony Burton via First Class mail at the address below:
Burton Midland County Jail 105 Fast Ice ...