United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
HONORABLE NANCY G. EDMUNDS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
the Court is Plaintiff Rufus Lamar Savin Spearman's
pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C.§ 1983. Plaintiff is an inmate incarcerated at the
Brooks Correctional Facility in Muskegon Heights, Michigan.
For the reasons stated below, the complaint is SUMMARILY
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM UPON
WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED.
Standard of Review
has been 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. §
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.
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 contains factual allegations that are “fantastic
or delusional” or if it is based on legal theories that
are indisputably meritless. See Brown v. Bargery,
207 F.3d 863, 866 (6th Cir.2000)(citing Neitzke, 490
U.S. at 327-28); See also Lawler v. Marshall, 898
F.2d 1196, 1198-99 (6th Cir.1990). 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.
Mich. 2001). A federal court is permitted to consider any
prison grievances and responses to those grievances that are
attached to and incorporated in a pro se prisoner
complaint in determining whether or not the case is subject
to summary dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)
and 1915A(b) for failing to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted. See e.g. White v. Caruso, 39 F.
App'x. 75, 78 (6th Cir. 2002). Courts are also permitted
to review other documents that are attached to a pro
se complaint to determine whether or not a pro
se plaintiff states a claim upon which relief can be
granted or whether the complaint should be summarily
dismissed. See e.g. Powell v. Messary, 11 F.
App'x. 389, 390 (6th Cir. 2001).
complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations,
” the “[f]actual allegations must be enough to
raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the
assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true
(even if doubtful in fact).” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)(footnote and citations
omitted). Stated differently, “a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, ‘to state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “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.”
Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
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.
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). “If a
plaintiff fails to make a showing on any essential element of
a § 1983 claim, it must fail.” Redding v. St.
Eward, 241 F.3d 530, 532 (6th Cir. 2001).