Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Faber v. Web

United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division

July 7, 2017

ROBERT ANDREW FABER, Plaintiff,
v.
ANN WEB, Defendants.

          OPINION

          JANET T. NEFF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This is 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.

         Factual Allegations

         Plaintiff 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.

         KPEP is 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, their supervisor.

         Plaintiff's 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 group.

         Defendant 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.

         Plaintiff seeks substantial monetary damages, retraction of the libelous and slanderous statements, as well as law enforcement investigation of Defendant Web and KPEP.

         Discussion I.

         Failure to state a claim

         A 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 - ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.