United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL AND ORDER
VACATING THE ORDER DIRECTING SERVICE
CARAM STEEH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Court has before it Plaintiff Michael Carl Hinds' pro
se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Plaintiff is an inmate currently confined at the
Beaver County Jail in Aliquippa, Pennsylvania. For the
reasons that follow, the complaint is DISMISSED IN PART WITH
PREJUDICE for failing to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted and DISMISSED IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE for
failure to comply with a deficiency order.
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. §
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.
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).
sues the Detroit Police Department and a police officer whom
he has identified only as “Unknown Police
Officer.” Plaintiff claims that on November 23, 2017,
this police officer arrested him on Ellsworth Street in the
City of Detroit. The officer moved plaintiff towards the back
of his police car and asked plaintiff “Where's your
money?” The officer said something to the effect of
“we could do this the easy way or the hard way.”
Plaintiff claims that the officer then sexually assaulted him
by undoing plaintiff's pants and putting his hand under
plaintiff's underwear and grabbing plaintiff's penis.
Plaintiff requests monetary damages.