United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING THE
PAGE HOOD CHIEF JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Court has before it Plaintiff Jerry Anderson, II's
pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C.§ 1983. Plaintiff is incarcerated at the Earnest
C. Brooks Correctional Facility in Muskegon Heights,
Michigan. The Court concludes that plaintiff's complaint
must be summarily dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted and on the basis of immunity. The
Court also concludes that an appeal from this decision cannot
be taken in good faith.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
has been allowed to proceed without prepayment of fees. See
28 § U.S.C. 1915(a); McGore v. Wrigglesworth,
114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997). However, 28 U.S.C. §
Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that
may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any
time if the court determines that:
(B) the action or appeal:
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law
or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325
(1989); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25,
32 (1992). Sua sponte dismissal is appropriate if
the complaint lacks an arguable basis when filed.
McGore, 114 F.3d at 612.
pro se litigant's complaint is to be construed
liberally, Middleton v. McGinnis, 860 F.Supp. 391,
392 (E.D. Mich. 1994)(citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429
U.S. 97, 106 (1976)); that is, such complaints are held to a
“less stringent standard” than those drafted by
attorneys. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972). Such complaints, however, must plead facts sufficient
to show a legal wrong has been committed from which plaintiff
may be granted relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b); Dekoven v.
Bell, 140 F.Supp.2d 748, 755 (E.D. Mich. 2001).
establish a prima facie case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a
civil rights plaintiff must establish that: (1) the defendant
acted under color of state law; and (2) the offending conduct
deprived the plaintiff of rights secured by federal law.
Bloch v. Ribar, 156 F.3d 673, 677 (6th Cir.
1998)(citing Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535
(1981)). “If a plaintiff fails to make a showing on any