United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT
VICTORIA A. ROBERTS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the Court is Plaintiff David Anthony Villarreal's
pro se civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding without prepayment of
the filing fee in this action under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(1). Plaintiff's claims relate to the revocation
of his parole. He seeks injunctive and monetary relief. For
the reasons which follow, the complaint is dismissed 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 Atl. 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)). While this notice pleading standard does not
require “detailed” factual allegations,
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, it does require more than
the bare assertion of legal conclusions or “an
accusation.” 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. (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). A
complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law
or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325
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).
names twelve defendants: an Administrative Law Judge (Tyra
Laws-Wright), several employees of the Saginaw County Parole
Office (Bill J. Pigott, Landon VanWormer, Katie Schall,
Samuel J. Ruffino, and Stephanie M. Musser), a Michigan
Department of Corrections (MDOC) grievance officer (Richard
D. Russell), a parole violation specialist (Cynthia VanLake),
and four members of the Michigan Parole Board (Combs, Eagen,
King, and Wilson). Plaintiff's claims focus on the
revocation of his parole.
1993, Plaintiff pleaded guilty in Saginaw County Circuit
Court to one count of second-degree criminal sexual conduct,
Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520c(1)(a), and no contest to two
counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, Mich. Comp.
Laws § 750.520b(1)(a). He was sentenced to concurrent
prison terms of five to fifteen years for the second-degree
criminal sexual conduct conviction and twenty to forty years
for each of the first-degree criminal sexual conduct
was released on parole in 2013. According to the complaint,
in 2015, Plaintiff was given a polygraph test by the parole
office and the results indicated deception. Plaintiff was
charged, in 2015, with violating the terms of his parole by
failing to complete a sex offender treatment program, using a
device capable of connecting to the internet, possessing a
cell phone capable of taking photographs, and failing to
charge his electronic monitoring device. Plaintiff was found
guilty of all of the charged violations, with the exception
of failing to complete a sex offender treatment program. His
parole was revoked on August 19, 2015.
complaint alleges that the revocation of his parole was
improperly based upon the failed polygraph examination. He
argues that the conditions of his parole did not require him
to submit to a polygraph examination and that, but for the
failed examination, his parole would not have been revoked.
complaint necessarily challenges the validity of the parole
revocation. 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
the parole revocation, this complaint is barred by
the complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), for failure to state a