United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING THE CIVIL
VICTORIA A. ROBERTS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Plaintiff Vernon Marcus Coleman's pro
se civil rights complaint. Plaintiff is a federal inmate
incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in
Jesup, Georgia. The original and amended complaints are
Dismissed without prejudice for failing to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.
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. §
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; Goodell v.
Anthony, 157 F.Supp.2d 796, 799 (E.D. Mich. 2001).
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).
U.S.C. § 1983 does not apply to actions against federal
officials, because they are not state actors acting under
color of state law. However, a plaintiff may file suit in
federal court for damages arising from a violation of
plaintiff's constitutional rights by persons acting under
the color of federal law. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 395
(1971). Plaintiff alleges that his constitutional rights were
violated by persons acting under color of federal law; the
complaint is construed as a Bivens action. See
e.g. Shehee v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295, 298 (6th Cir.
1999). The screening provisions of the Prisoner Litigation
Reform Act (PLRA) are applicable to Bivens actions
brought by federal inmates. See e.g. Diaz v. Van
Norman, 351 F.Supp.2d 679, 680-81 (E.D. Mich. 2005).