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.

Hinds v. Unknown Name Police Officer

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

April 12, 2018

MICHAEL CARL HINDS, Jr., Plaintiff,
v.
UNKNOWN NAME POLICE OFFICER et. al., Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL AND ORDER VACATING THE ORDER DIRECTING SERVICE

          GEORGE CARAM STEEH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         The 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.

         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).

         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. Complaint

         Plaintiff 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.

         IV. ...


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.