United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
PETER C. TAYLOR, Plaintiff,
WAYNE COUNTY MEDICAL EXAMINER, ET. AL., Defendants,
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S CIVIL
RIGHTS COMPLAINT AND TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE COURT OF
APPEALS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A)
Corbett O'Meara United States District Judge
Court has before it Plaintiff Peter C. Taylor's pro
se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Plaintiff is a state prisoner currently confined
at the Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility in Ionia,
Michigan. For the reasons stated below, the Court will deny
plaintiff's civil rights complaint, because it fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This Court
further construes plaintiff's action as a second or
successive petition for habeas relief and will transfer the
matter to the United States Court of Appeals pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) for authorization to file a
second or successive habeas petition.
Standard of Review
plaintiff was 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. § 1915(e)(2)(B) states:
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). “A complaint lacks an arguable basis in law
or fact if it ... is based on legal theories that are
indisputably meritless.” Brown v. Bargery, 207
F.3d 863, 866 (6th Cir. 2000)(citing Neitzke, 490
U.S. at 327-28). A complaint fails to state a claim “if
it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set
of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to
relief.” Brown, 207 F.3d at 867. Sua sponte
dismissal is appropriate if the complaint lacks an arguable
basis when filed. McGore, 114 F.3d at 612;
Goodell v. Anthony, 157 F.Supp.2d 796, 799 (E.D.
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, the complaint should be held to a
“less stringent standard” than one drafted by a
lawyer. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
Such complaints nevertheless must plead facts sufficient to
show that 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.
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