United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
VICTORIA A. ROBERTS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE .
Ryan Bezinet, a state inmate currently incarcerated at the
Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility in Ionia, Michigan, has
filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. He names a single defendant, the Michigan Department of
Corrections (MDOC). He argues that he was tricked into
pleading guilty to a Class I misconduct charge during a
prison disciplinary proceeding, resulting in the loss of
visitation privileges. Plaintiff seeks injunctive and
monetary relief. The complaint will be dismissed under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint set
forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief, ” as well as
“a demand for the relief sought.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2), (3). The purpose of this rule is 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) and Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2)). While this notice pleading standard does not
require “detailed” factual allegations,
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, it does require more than
the bare assertion of legal conclusions or “an
accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009). “A pleading that offers ‘labels and
conclusions' or ‘a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.'”
Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
“Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders
‘naked assertion[s]' devoid of ‘further
factual enhancement.'” Id. (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
has been granted leave to proceed without prepayment of the
filing fee for this action. Under the Prison Litigation
Reform Act (“PLRA”), the Court is required to
sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis
complaint before service on a defendant if it determines that
the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c); 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). Similarly, the Court is required to dismiss a
complaint seeking redress against government entities,
officers, and employees that it finds to be frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). A
complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law
or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325
state a federal civil rights claim, a plaintiff must allege
that: (1) he was deprived of a right, privilege, or immunity
secured by the federal Constitution or laws of the United
States, and (2) the deprivation was caused by a person acting
under color of state law. Flagg Bros. v. Brooks, 436
U.S. 149, 155-57 (1978). A pro se civil rights
complaint is to be construed liberally. Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).
may not maintain a § 1983 action against the MDOC. The
states and their departments are immune under the Eleventh
Amendment from suit in the federal courts, unless the state
has waived immunity or Congress has expressly abrogated
Eleventh Amendment immunity by statute. See Pennhurst
State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 98-101
(1984); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978).
Eleventh Amendment immunity “bars all suits, whether
for injunctive, declaratory or monetary relief, against the
state and its departments by citizens of another state,
foreigners or its own citizens.” Thiokol Corp. v.
Dep't of Treasury, State of Mich., Revenue Div., 987
F.2d 376, 381 (6th Cir. 1993). Michigan has not consented to
civil rights suits in federal court. See Johnson v.
Dellatifia, 357 F.3d 539, 545 (6th Cir. 2004). The
Michigan Department of Corrections is an arm of the State of
Michigan and, therefore, both are immune from suit under the
Eleventh Amendment. See Harrison v. Michigan, 722
F.3d 768, 771 (6th Cir. 2013). In addition, the State of
Michigan (acting through the Michigan Department of
Corrections) is not a “person” who may be sued
under § 1983 for money damages. See Lapides v. Bd.
of Regents, 535 U.S. 613 (2002), citing Will v.
Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58
Eleventh Amendment precludes Plaintiff's claims against
the MDOC. The complaint is therefore DISMISSED.
Court further finds that if Plaintiff elects to appeal this
decision, he may not proceed without prepayment of the fees
and costs on appeal because an appeal would be frivolous and
could not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. §