United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
T. NEFF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a civil action brought by a federal 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 brought under federal law 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). 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 for failure to state a claim.
is presently incarcerated for a term of twelve months at
Federal Correctional Institution-Miami following his
admission of guilt to violation of the terms of his
supervised release. Plaintiff's supervised release was
conditioned upon him staying at a residential reentry center,
in this instance the Kalamazoo Probation Enhancement Program
(KPEP) in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Plaintiff's supervised
release was also conditioned on him participating in mental
health treatment and sex offender treatment. Plaintiff
participated in the KPEP treatment programs while he resided
there. He continued with the KPEP treatment programs after he
obtained employment and moved into independent housing.
a private non-profit Michigan corporation. KPEP describes its
mission as follows:
KPEP began in the fall of 1980 to provide a live-in residence
for those individuals who need more structure than regular
probation provides, but where extended jail time is not
judged necessary. The goal of KPEP is to show the residents
that they can become independent, contributing members of
society. The organization works closely with all aspects of
the criminal justice system, including local law enforcement
departments, corrections and probation departments, and
various circuit court judges.
Over the years, the populations served by KPEP have changed
and now include: felony probationers, state parolees, Drug
Treatment Court participants, SAI probationers and parolees,
federal inmates, federal probationers, and clients who are
currently on federal pre-trial status.
See http://kpep.com/about. Plaintiff sues three KPEP
employees: Elizabeth Carey and Amanda Terburg,
Plaintiff's outpatient therapists at KPEP, and Ann Web,
complaint is not a model of clarity. Plaintiff alleges that
on January 2017, Defendant Carey was leading a group therapy
session that included Plaintiff. He claims that she responded
inappropriately to Plaintiff's statements at the session.
He claims further that Defendant Carey revealed confidential
information about Plaintiff to a member of another therapy
Terburg led the next group therapy session. Plaintiff claims
that she too acted inappropriately with respect to
Plaintiff's treatment in the session. Plaintiff claims
both therapists lied in Plaintiff's treatment file and
that the lie was used to establish Plaintiff's violation
of the terms of his release. Plaintiff claims that they have
libeled and slandered him. Plaintiff makes no allegations
against Defendant Web other than stating she supervises
Defendants Carey and Terburg.
seeks substantial monetary damages, retraction of the
libelous and slanderous statements, as well as law
enforcement investigation of Defendant Web and KPEP.
to state a claim
complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it
fails “‘to give the defendant fair notice of what
the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.'” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). While a complaint need not contain
detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's allegations
must include more than labels and conclusions.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“Threadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”). The
court must determine whether the complaint contains
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” 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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 679. Although the plausibility standard is not equivalent
to a “‘probability requirement, ' . . . it
asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has
acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “[W]here
the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more
than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has
alleged - ...