United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
CARAM STEEH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
state prisoner Dwayne Carter has filed a pro se
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming four
defendants. Plaintiff claims Defendants violated his rights
under the First and Eighth Amendments. He seeks injunctive
and monetary relief. The Court dismisses Plaintiff's
complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
has been granted leave to proceed without prepayment of the
filing fee for this action due to his indigence. Under the
Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), the Court
is required to sua sponte dismiss an in forma
pauperis complaint before service on a defendant if it
determines that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c); 28 U.S.C.
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint set
forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief, ” as well as
“a demand for the relief sought.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2), (3). The purpose of this rule is 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) and Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2)). While this notice pleading standard does not
require “detailed” factual allegations,
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, it does require more than
the bare assertion of legal conclusions or “an
accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009). “A pleading that offers ‘labels and
conclusions' or ‘a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.'”
Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
“Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders
‘naked assertion[s]' devoid of ‘further
factual enhancement.'” Id. (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
state a federal civil rights claim, a plaintiff must allege
that: (1) he was deprived of a right, privilege, or immunity
secured by the federal Constitution or laws of the United
States, and (2) the deprivation was caused by a person acting
under color of state law. Flagg Bros. v. Brooks, 436
U.S. 149, 155-57 (1978). A pro se civil rights
complaint is to be construed liberally. Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).
claims arise from a December 6, 2017 incident occurring
during his incarceration at the Saginaw Correctional Facility
in Freeland, Michigan. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
Cantu, a corrections officer, reached his hand into
Plaintiff's back pocket to pull out some papers. In so
doing, Defendant Cantu brushed his hand against
Plaintiff's buttocks. Plaintiff informed Defendant Cantu
that he was not permitted to touch his buttocks. Another
corrections officer advised Plaintiff that Defendant Cantu
could do so if he believed Plaintiff had something suspicious
in his pocket.
December 11, 2017, Plaintiff filed a grievance against
Defendant Cantu. Plaintiff believes that Defendant Cantu
touched his buttocks with an intent to abuse, not for sexual
gratification. Plaintiff alleges that he now suffers from an
increased fear of being assaulted in prison, which has caused
him great discomfort and mental anguish.
an investigation, Plaintiff was informed that no evidence was
found to support his claim. He alleges that Defendants later
wrote him a misconduct ticket for interference with
administrative rules by filing a false claim. He claims the
misconduct ticket was issued in retaliation for his filing a
Eighth Amendment Claim
alleges that Defendant Cantu violated the Eighth
Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual
punishment when he ...