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.

Cooper v. Team Welliness Mental Health Services Supervisor

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

February 1, 2018

Elgin L. Cooper, Plaintiff,
v.
Team Wellness mental Health Services Supervisor, et al., Defendants.

          Elizabeth A. Stafford U.S. Magistrate Judge

          ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS [10]

          Arthur J. Tarnow Senior United States District Judge

         On July 19, 2017, Plaintiff Elgin Cooper, proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit against Defendants, Team Wellness Center, Inc. and their unidentified employees. On the same date, Plaintiff filed another lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the State of Michigan, the Detroit Police Department, and Wayne County. See Cooper v. State of Michigan, et al., No. 17-12347. The Court dismissed that case on November 8, 2017.

         Many of the issues presented in this case overlap with those in Plaintiff's other case. To the extent that Plaintiff's allegations in this case set forth claims against the State of Michigan, the Detroit Police Department, and/or Wayne County, they are DISMISSED. Plaintiff's claims against the State of Michigan cannot stand because “the Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from entertaining suits by private parties against States and their agencies.” Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 781 (1978).

         The Detroit Police Department is also entitled to dismissal because a city police department is not a legal entity against whom a § 1983 suit can be directed. Michonski v. City of Detroit, 162 Mich.App. 485, 490 (1987); see also Mondak v. Taylor Police Department, 2017 WL 1103618, at *2 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 23, 2017). Finally, the Court dismisses all claims against Wayne County because “Plaintiff has not identified a county policy or custom, connected the policy or custom to [Wayne] County, nor shown that his [injuries] resulted from execution of a county policy.” Sanders v. Shiawassee County, No. 16-10993, 2016 WL 2609788, at *3 (E.D. Mich. May 6, 2016).

         As best as the Court can discern, Plaintiff brings claims of hostile work environment, sexual harassment, invasion of privacy, slander, violation of the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), and violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution against the Team Wellness Center defendants. The events underlying Plaintiff's complaint occurred during his employment with Team Wellness, from July 11, 2011 through April 11, 2012.

         The Team Wellness defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss [10] on November 7, 2017. In response, Plaintiff has submitted a number of filings [13, 15, 16] in which he requests that the Court “not allow these agencies no mercy or immunity.” (Dkt. 13).

         The Court has considered the parties' submissions and finds the motion suitable for determination without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(f)(2). For the reasons discussed in depth below, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [10] is GRANTED.

         Legal Standard

         “Pro se complaints are to be held ‘to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, ' and should therefore be liberally construed.” Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 712 (6th Cir. 2004)). On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court must “assume the veracity of [the plaintiff's] well-pleaded factual allegations and determine whether the plaintiff is entitled to legal relief as a matter of law.” McCormick v. Miami Univ., 693 F.3d 654, 658 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009)). “To survive a motion to dismiss, [plaintiff] must allege ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Traverse Bay Area Intermediate Sch. Dist. v. Mich. Dep't of Educ., 615 F.3d 622, 627 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).

         Analysis

         Plaintiff filed the complaint more than five years after his final day of employment on April 11, 2012. This delay precludes the majority of Plaintiff's allegations.

         1. Sexual Harassment and Hostile Work Environment

         “As Plaintiffs' hostile work environment claim is a state claim, filed pursuant to the [Elliot Larson Civil Rights Act (“ELCRA”)], a three-year statute of limitations applies.” Marin v. Bloom Roofing System, Inc., 795 F.Supp.2d 634, 646 (E.D. Mich. 2011) (citing M.C.L. § 600.5805(10)). “[U]nder Michigan law, a plaintiff may not bring a claim for events that occurred beyond the three-year period.” Id. at 647 (citing Garg v. Macomb Co. Cmty. Mental Health Servs., 472 Mich. 263, 284 (2005)). Similarly, Plaintiff should have filed his sexual harassment claims “within either 180 or 300 days of the date of the [wrongful] act.” National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. ...


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.