United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
L. Maloney United States District Judge.
a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. 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 for failure to state a claim.
Plaintiff is presently incarcerated with the Michigan
Department of Corrections (MDOC) at the Ionia Correctional
Facility (ICF) in Ionia, Michigan. The events about which he
complains occurred at that facility. Plaintiff sues ICF, and
Grievance Coordinators S. Lewis, Adam Yuhas, and Unknown
alleges that Defendants have demonstrated a pattern of not
processing Plaintiff's grievances according to policy. As
a result, Plaintiff does not have a fair chance to address
issues. Plaintiff contends this constitutes a denial of due
simply asks the Court to look into the matter.
Failure to State a Claim
complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it
fails “‘to give the defendant fair notice of what
the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.'” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). While a complaint need not contain
detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's allegations
must include more than labels and conclusions.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“Threadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”). The
court must determine whether the complaint contains
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” 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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 679; see also Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468,
470-71 (6th Cir. 2010) (holding that the
Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard applies to
dismissals of prisoner cases on initial review under 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)).
“[a] 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 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.
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege the violation of a right secured by the federal
Constitution or laws and must show that the deprivation was
committed by a person acting under color of state law.
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Street
v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 102 F.3d 810, 814 (6th Cir.
1996). Because § 1983 is a method for vindicating
federal rights, not a source of substantive rights itself,
the first step in an action under § 1983 is to identify
the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed.
Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994).
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have denied him due
process, a right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Ionia Correctional Facility is not an entity separate from
the MDOC. It is one of several “buildings used by the
MDOC to house prisoners.” Ryan v. Corizon Health
Care, No. 1:13-cv-525, 2013 WL 5786934, at *7 (W.D.
Mich. Oct. 28, 2013). A specific correctional facility is
“not the proper public entity for suit.”
Id.; see also Cage v. Kent County Corr.
Facility, No. 96-1167, 1997 WL 225647, at *1 (6th Cir.
May 1, 1997) (“The district court also properly found
that the jail facility named as a defendant was not an entity
subject to suit under § 1983.”); Belcher v.
Ottawa County Adult Corr. Facility, No. 1:09-cv-173,
2009 WL 1163412, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 28, 2009) (“The
Ottawa County Adult Correctional Facility is a building, not
an entity capable of being sued in its own right.”).
Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Defendant ICF.