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.

Diabo v. Unknown Parties

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

December 4, 2017

RANDOLPH SCOTT DIABO, Plaintiff,
v.
UNKNOWN PARTIES, Defendants.

          OPINION

          Paul L. Maloney, United States District Judge.

         This is 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 claim.

         Discussion

         I. Factual allegations

         Plaintiff 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.

         Plaintiff 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.

         Plaintiff 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.

         Plaintiff 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 relief.

         II. 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 - 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)).

         To 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).

         Initially, 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 Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)).

         Moreover, 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 PageID.16.

         On May 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 ...


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.