United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
T. NEFF, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by
a person who, at the time the complaint was filed, was
detained in the Cass County Jail. The Cass County
Sheriff's Department has notified the Court that
Plaintiff is no longer at the jail. Going forward, the Clerk
shall mail documents to Plaintiff at the home address he
provided on the second page of his complaint.
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. 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 against Defendant City of
Dowagiac. The Court will serve the complaint against
I. Factual allegations
March 26, 2019, Plaintiff was driving in Cass County. After
pulling into the parking lot of an assisted living center,
Plaintiff was stopped by Dowagiac City Police Officer
Defendant Luke Britton, ostensibly for failing to stop at a
nearby intersection. Plaintiff denies failing to stop at the
intersection. Plaintiff claims Defendant Britton had no
legitimate reason to stop Plaintiff.
initially refused to provide his name. After he provided his
name, Defendant Britton handcuffed Plaintiff and detained him
in the back of Defendant Britton's police vehicle.
Defendant Britton then searched Plaintiff's vehicle.
returning to the police vehicle, Defendant Britton determined
that a warrant had been issued for Plaintiff's arrest for
failure to pay child support. Defendant Britton placed
Plaintiff under arrest and impounded Plaintiff's vehicle.
contends that every aspect of his encounter with Defendant
Britton-the stop, the detention, the search, the arrest, and
the seizure of Plaintiff's car-violated Plaintiff's
Fourth Amendment rights.
also sues the City of Dowagiac. He does not make any specific
allegations against the city.
seeks compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of
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. Although the plausibility standard is not equivalent
to a “‘probability requirement,' . . . it
asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has
acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “[W]here
the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more
than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has
alleged - but it has not ‘show[n]' - that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 679 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)); 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)).
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 ...