United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
PAUL L. MALONEY JUDGE.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
KENT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
a pro se civil rights action brought pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants County of Calhoun
(“County”), the State of Michigan
(“Michigan”), and the Michigan Department of
Corrections (“MDOC”). The only remaining defendant
is the County. This matter is now before the Court on the
County's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 37) and
plaintiff's “Notice of request for summary
disposition; or, in the equivalent, verified motion for
summary judgment” (docketed as a motion for summary
judgment) (ECF No. 43).
Plaintiff's amended complaint
amended complaint contains vague and sometimes
incomprehensible statements of alleged misconduct (ECF No. 5,
PageID.63-67), disjointed legal arguments (citing among other
things natural law, federal statutes, federal constitutional
law, and state contract law) (id. at PageID.67-70),
and requests for relief which include $2.5 million in damages
and an investigation of defendants by “the Federal
District Attorney, or the Federal Bureau of
Investigation's Government Corruption Division”
(id. at PageID.70-71). The Court summarized
plaintiff's claims in a previous report and
recommendation as follows:
In his amended complaint, plaintiff identifies himself as a
“natural person” who is an “inhabitant of
the republic of Michigan.” Amend. Compl. (docket no. 5,
PageID.65). Since 1996, plaintiff alleged that “certain
agents and confederates” of defendants have conspired
to deprive him of his “constitutionally-protected
rights to the dominion, association, and consortium of his
natural daughters.” Id. at PageID.65.
Specifically, on October 31, 2006, plaintiff was arrested
“with malicious intent and under fraudulent
pretenses” by agents of the County. Id. From
March 7, 2007 to February 28, 2015, during his eight years of
incarceration, Michigan and the MDOC “fraudulently
deprived [plaintiff] of his liberty (for a purported
‘failure to pay' a fraudulently-assigned
‘debt')”. Id. at PageID.66.
Plaintiff appears to raise two constitutional claims. First,
plaintiff alleged that defendants violated his
“clearly-established Constitutional right” of
paternal dominion under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Id. at PageID.67-68, 70. Second, plaintiff alleged
defendants violated his rights under the Thirteenth Amendment
and the Anti-Peonage statute by incarcerating him for a
“failure to pay.” Id. at PageID.68, 70.
Plaintiff seeks $2, 500, 000.00 in damages. Id. at
and Recommendation (ECF No. 27, PageID.169-170), adopted in
Order (ECF No. 30).
alleged that since 1996, the four state actors, i.e., the
“County of Calhoun, ” “37th Circuit Court,
” “10th District Court, ” and
“Calhoun County Friend of the Court, ” conspired
to deprive plaintiff of his dominion, association, and
consortium of his natural daughters. Amend. Compl. at
PageID.65. In addition, “agents and confederates”
of the state actors arrested plaintiff and unconstitutionally
returned him “to a condition of peonage and involuntary
servitude in violation of federal law.” Id.
The peonage and involuntary servitude refer to
plaintiff's incarceration for failing to pay child
support, which he characterized as follows:
That from March 7, 2007, to February 8, 2015, and with the
further complicity of the de facto corporate
“STATE OF MICHIGAN”, “MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS” and their agents and confederates,
Petitioner was fraudulently deprived of his liberty (for a
purported “failure to pay” a
fraudulently-assigned “debt”) in furtherance of
said return to that de facto system of peonage as
has been established and maintained by those state actors
mentioned in paragraph 4, above, resulting in further and
additional injuries and damages.
Id. at PageID.66.
Defendant County's motion to dismiss (ECF No.
County has moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff did not
oppose the motion; however, as discussed infra,
plaintiff filed his own motion for summary judgment. A
complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it
fails to give the defendants a fair notice of the claim and
the grounds upon which it rests. Bell Atlantic
Corporation v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face. 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. 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.
Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent