United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER PARTIALLY DISMISSING THE CIVIL
TERRENCE G. BERG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Plaintiff Larry Darnell Cheatham's pro
se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Plaintiff is a state prisoner incarcerated at
the Marquette Branch Prison in Marquette, Michigan. The Court
has reviewed the complaint and now DISMISSES IT IN
Standard of Review
was 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. §
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;
(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).
prove 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.
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).