United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
T. NEFF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a civil action brought by a state prisoner. Under the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321
(1996) (PLRA), the Court is required to dismiss any prisoner
action brought under federal law if the complaint is
frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2), 1915A; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). The Court must
read Plaintiff's pro se complaint indulgently,
see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and
accept Plaintiff's allegations as true, unless they are
clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). Applying these
standards, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's complaint
because it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
presently is incarcerated with the Michigan Department of
Corrections (MDOC) at the Baraga Correctional Facility (AMF)
in Baraga, Michigan. Plaintiff is serving a sentence of 1
year, 6 months to 4 years following his nolo
contendere plea to two counts of felonious assault,
Mich. Comp. L. § 750.82. Plaintiff's maximum
discharge date is October 17, 2018. In anticipation of that
discharge, Plaintiff sues the State of Michigan seeking to
get his driver's license back as well as initial payment
of, or perhaps renewal of, Plaintiff's social security
relief, Plaintiff seeks $1 million in damages.
Failure to State a Claim
complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a
claim if the allegations, taken as true, show the plaintiff
is not entitled to relief.” Jones v. Bock, 549
U.S. 199, 215 (2007). Thus, dismissal is appropriate where
the plaintiff fails to plead sufficient factual content to
permit the court “to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); see
also Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007). Dismissal for failure to state a claim is also
appropriate where the allegations, taken as true, establish
that relief is barred by an affirmative defense such as
failure to exhaust administrative remedies, statute of
limitations, or absolute immunity. Jones, 549 U.S.
at 215. Here, Plaintiff's allegations establish that the
relief he requests is barred by sovereign immunity under the
may not maintain this civil action against the State of
Michigan in federal court. Regardless of the form of relief
requested, the states are immune under the Eleventh Amendment
from suit in the federal courts, unless the state has waived
immunity or Congress has expressly abrogated Eleventh
Amendment immunity by statute. See Pennhurst State Sch.
& Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 98-101 (1984);
Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978);
O'Hara v. Wigginton, 24 F.3d 823, 826 (6th Cir.
1993). Congress has not expressly abrogated Eleventh
Amendment immunity by statute for the claims Plaintiff
raises. Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 341 (1979).
Moreover, the State of Michigan has not consented to civil
suits like Plaintiff's suit in federal court. Abick
v. Michigan, 803 F.2d 874, 877 (6th Cir. 1986). Because
Plaintiff seeks relief against the State of Michigan, and the
State of Michigan is immune from suit for claims such as
Plaintiff's, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.
conducted the review required by the Prison Litigation Reform
Act, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b).
Court must next decide whether an appeal of this action would
be in good faith within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(3). See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d
601, 611 (6th Cir. 1997). For the same reasons that the Court
dismisses the action, the Court discerns no good-faith basis
for an appeal. Should Plaintiff appeal this decision, the
Court will assess the $505.00 appellate filing fee pursuant
to § 1915(b)(1), see McGore, 114 F.3d at
610-11, unless Plaintiff is barred from proceeding in
forma pauperis, e.g., by the “three-strikes”
rule of § 1915(g). If he is barred, he will be required
to pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee in one lump sum.
a dismissal as described by 28 ...