United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL
Victoria A. Roberts United States District Court Judge
Kirk Elledge, who is presently confined at the Baraga
Correctional Facility filed a pro se civil rights complaint.
The complaint names three defendants, all of whom are
employed by the Wayne County Sheriffs Department. For the
reasons stated below, the Court summarily dismisses the
complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and
1915A(b) with respect to defendants Bowers and Harris. The
case may proceed against defendant Meredith.
Standard of Review
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; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c).
The Court must read plaintiffs pro se complaint indulgently,
see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and
accept plaintiffs allegations as true, unless they are
clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
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). While a complaint need not contain detailed factual
allegations, a plaintiffs allegations must include more than
labels and conclusions. Bell Ail. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); 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.
complaint asserts that on April 25, 2017, when Plaintiff was
being escorted from a courtroom back to the bullpen by
defendant Meredith, Meredith directed him into an isolated
area and "attacked [plaintiff] and beat [him] to the
point that [he] was hospitalized at the Detroit Receiving
Hospital for 3 days." Dkt. 1, at 5, 6-7, 15.
complaint also asserts that defendant Bowers failed to follow
court protocol by accompanying Meredith while plaintiff was
escorted to the bullpen. Finally, the complaint asserts that
defendant Harris failed to "properly follow-up on
complaint of plaintiff." Id.
claim against defendant Meredith is straight-forward. He
asserts that Meredith beat him without provocation or
justification. In its prohibition of "cruel and unusual
punishments," the Eighth Amendment prohibits the use
excessive physical force against prisoners by state actors.
See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992);
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). The
complaint states an Eighth Amendment claim against defendant
claims that defendant Bowers failed to follow court policy by
allowing Meredith to transfer plaintiff to the bullpen alone.
A complaint must allege facts showing that each named
defendant participated, condoned, encouraged, or knowingly
acquiesced in the misconduct to establish liability. See
Taylor v. Michigan Dep't of Corrections, 69 F.3d
716, 727-28 (6th Cir. 1995). The complaint does not assert
that Bowers had any knowledge that Meredith would assault
plaintiff or that he encouraged the assault in anyway.
Furthermore, a respondeat superior theory of liability is not
available in ...