United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER OF PARTIAL SUMMARY
J. TARNOW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Richard Soldan filed this pro se civil rights
complaint against the Michigan Department of Corrections and
three of its employees in their individual and official
capacities. Plaintiff alleges that he did not receive the
process he was due when Defendants revoked his parole without
a full revocation hearing to which he was entitled. The Court
granted Plaintiff's application to proceed without
prepaying fees or costs on May 20, 2019. (ECF No. 6.) The
Court now dismisses defendant Michigan Department of
April 26, 2017, while detained in the Genesee County Jail,
Plaintiff was served with a notice of parole violation
charges. (Compl. at 7, ECF No. 1, PageID 10.) The same day,
Plaintiff signed both pages of the charging document.
(Id. at Exhs. A, B, PageID 36, 38.) The first page
of the form states, “My signature does not in any way
constitute an admission to the above charges.” (Compl.
Exh. A, PageID 36.) By signing the second page, Plaintiff
waived his right to a preliminary parole violation hearing.
However, that page states, “I understand that waiver of
the preliminary hearing is not an admission of guilt and that
I still have the right to a full revocation hearing . .
.” (Compl. Exh. B, PageID 38.)
24, 2017, an unknown Michigan Department of Corrections
officer transported Plaintiff to the Clinton County Jail
(also known as “IDRp”). (Compl. at 7, PageID 10.)
Once there, Plaintiff made repeated attempts to determine his
status, that is, when he would receive a hearing and when he
could expect to be released. (Id. at 7, 7B, PageID
10, 12.) After an unknown parole agent told him he was not
going to receive a hearing, Plaintiff attempted to file an
MDOC grievance. However, he was unable to do so, because he
was not provided a grievance form despite numerous requests.
Robinson, Warner, and Robertson completed and signed MDOC
form “Parole Violation Worksheet and Decision” on
May 15 and 16, 2017. (Compl. Exh. C, PageID 40-41.) Defendant
Robinson recommended Plaintiff “return to DRC [Detroit
Reentry Center] for residential treatment.”
(Id. at 41.) Defendant Warner concurred, stating
that Plaintiff should “be sanctioned to the DRC”
substance abuse programs. (Id.) Defendant Robertson
entered the final decision, which was to “Reinstate,
Residential ReEntry Program . . . . IDRp or Ingham, ”
along with other conditions. (Id.) Plaintiff was
released from IDRp June 22, 2017. (Id. at 7B, PageID
January 2017, before the parole revocation issues arose,
Plaintiff objected to his parole condition of a GPS tether,
believing it to be contrary to law. (Compl. at 7A, PageID
11.) He threatened to sue Defendant Robinson over the issue.
raises both federal and state claims. He argues that his
rights were violated pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution, for the lack of due process in his
parole revocation; and the First Amendment, because Defendant
Robinson's actions were motivated by Plaintiff's
threatened lawsuit. Plaintiff's state-based claims
include a due process claim under the Michigan Constitution,
false imprisonment, and gross negligence.
seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
compensatory damages for his loss of liberty between April
24, 2017, and his final release on June 22, 2017.
complaint filed by a prisoner proceeding pro se is
subject to the screening requirements of 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2). Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863, 866 (6th
Cir. 2000). Section 1915(e)(2) requires district courts to
screen and to dismiss complaints that are frivolous, fail to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or that seek
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); McGore v.
Wigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997).
complaint is frivolous and subject to sua sponte
dismissal under § 1915(e) if it lacks an arguable basis
in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989). To determine whether a plaintiff has failed
to state a claim, a court must “construe his complaint
in the light most favorable to him, accept his factual
allegations as true, and determine whether he can prove any
set of facts that would entitle him to relief.”
Wershe v. Combs, 763 F.3d 500, 505 (6th Cir. 2014)
(quoting Harbin-Bey v. Rutter, 420 F.3d 571, 575
(6th Cir. 2005)).