United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Northern Division
L. Maloney, United States District Judge.
a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act,
Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (PLRA), 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), 1915A; 42 U.S.C. §
1997e(c). 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, the Court will dismiss
Plaintiff's complaint against Defendants Unknown Parties
named as Twenty Unknown Defendants for failure to state a
is presently incarcerated with the Michigan Department of
Corrections (MDOC) at Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility
(IBC) in Ionia, Ionia County, Michigan. The events about
which he complains, however, occurred at the Marquette Branch
Prison (MBP) in Marquette, Marquette County, Michigan, as
well as prior to his incarceration. Plaintiff sues Unknown
Parties, named as Twenty Unknown Defendants.
alleges that on June 25, 2009, he was sentenced to 4 years
probation pursuant to a plea agreement. Plaintiff states that
60 days prior to the expiration of his probation, his agent
gave him verbal notice that it was to be extended. While on
probation, Plaintiff was arrested on 6 felony charges and was
resentenced to 1 to 15 years imprisonment in the MDOC.
Plaintiff was subsequently transferred to the Benzie County
District Court, where he was sentenced to 14 months to 2
years imprisonment, to run concurrent to his existing
sentence. In addition, Plaintiff was also ordered to pay
restitution of $5, 000.00 plus $60.00 pursuant to the Crime
Victim's Rights Act.
was transferred to MBP, where he was wrongfully diagnosed
with an unspecified medical problem. Plaintiff claims that
his diagnosis was improperly released to the State
Administrator, which defamed his character.
claims that the wrongful diagnosis constituted defamation of
character in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments. Plaintiff further claims that the Benzie and
Marquette Municipal Courts “assessed . . . cases
[against him] and prosecuted Plaintiff maliciously.”
Plaintiff contends that the extension of his probation /
parole was unjust. Finally, Plaintiff states that the lack of
medical care provided to him during his incarceration
violated the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff seeks compensatory
and punitive damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive
Failure 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 - but it has not ‘show[n]' - that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 679 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)); see also Hill
v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010) (holding
that the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard applies
to dismissals of prisoner cases on initial review under 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)).
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege the violation of a right secured by the federal
Constitution or laws and must show that the deprivation was
committed by a person acting under color of state law.
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Street
v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 102 F.3d 810, 814 (6th Cir.
1996). Because § 1983 is a method for vindicating
federal rights, not a source of substantive rights itself,
the first step in an action under § 1983 is to identify
the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed.
Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994).
the Court notes that Plaintiff's complaint consists of
conclusory assertions of wrongdoing, and fails to include
specific allegations in support of those assertions. In fact,
Plaintiff fails to even specify the names of the defendants
in this case. While a complaint need not contain detailed
factual allegations, a plaintiff's allegations must
include more than labels and conclusions. Bell Atl. Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). 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. The court
need not accept “threadbare recitals of the elements of
a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements .
. . .” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009). “The plausibility standard is not akin to a
‘probability requirement, ' but it asks for more
than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully.” Id. 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
B but it has not ‘show[n]' B that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” Id. at 679 (quoting
Plaintiff's individual claims lack merit under even the
most generous standard of review. Plaintiff claims that he
was denied medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Plaintiff fails to specify the nature of his medical problem
in the body of his complaint. According to attachments to
Plaintiff's complaint, he kited health care complaining
of collar bone / shoulder problems, and claiming that his
collar bone slides out of place. Plaintiff requested a
shoulder brace. See ECF No. 1-1,
PageID.16-PageID.19. On April 28, 2016, Plaintiff kited that
he had a dislocated shoulder and needed a shoulder brace.
Plaintiff stated in the kite that his shoulder had been
x-rayed, but that he did not have a follow up visit with the
doctor. Jerry C. Ritz, RN stated that Plaintiff would receive
a chart review. Id. at PageID.17. Plaintiff kited
again on April 30, 2016, and was told that he would be
scheduled to see a health care provider. Id. at
31, 2016, Plaintiff kited that he had a dislocated shoulder
and was told to kite Health Care three weeks from his last
visit. Based on Plaintiff's kite, it is clear that he was
seen by health care around May ...