Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Savin Spearman v. Parson

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

March 28, 2018

RUFUS LAMAR SAVIN SPEARMAN, Plaintiff,
v.
MARY PARSON, ET. AL., Defendants,

          OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL

          HONORABLE NANCY G. EDMUNDS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

         I. Introduction

         Before 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.

         II. Standard of Review

         Plaintiff 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. § 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; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.

         A 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).

         While a 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).

         To 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).

         III. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.