United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Elgin L. Cooper, Plaintiff,
Team Wellness mental Health Services Supervisor, et al., Defendants.
Elizabeth A. Stafford U.S. Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
J. Tarnow Senior United States District Judge
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.
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).
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,
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.
Team Wellness defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss  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).
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  is
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,
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.
Sexual Harassment and Hostile Work Environment
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. ...