United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
JOHN F. HODGE, Plaintiff,
WASHTENAW COUNTY JAIL, ET. AL., Defendants,
OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING CIVIL RIGHTS
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Hodge, (“Plaintiff”), incarcerated at the
Washtenaw County Jail in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed a civil
rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
complaint is summarily denied without prejudice.
Standard of Review
has been permitted to proceed without prepayment of fees.
See 28 § U.S.C. 1915(a); McGore v.
Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997). Title
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) states:
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). Sua sponte dismissal is appropriate if
the complaint lacks an arguable basis when filed.
McGore, 114 F.3d at 612.
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 show that: (1) the defendant
acted under color of state law; and (2) the offending conduct
deprived the plaintiff of rights secured by federal law.
Bloch v. Ribar, 156 F.3d 673, 677 (6th Cir.
1998)(citing Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535
(1981)). “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).