United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Northern Division
HON.
PAUL L. MALONEY U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MAARTEN VERMAAT U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I.
Introduction
Plaintiff
Rebecca Suzanne Denofre filed this action against the City of
Ishpeming, Police Chief Steve Snowaert, and Police Officer
Justin Bianco. The Court granted Denofre leave to proceed
in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the
undersigned recommends that the complaint be dismissed for
failure to state a claim.
II.
Factual Allegations
The
allegations in this case are quite confusing. Denofre alleges
that she received an “unwelcomed” phone call from
a Wells Fargo Bank employee on February 23, 2018. The unnamed
employee asked Denofre to come to a Wells Fargo Bank to
retrieve a password for her bank account profile. The next
day, Denofre went to the Wells Fargo Bank in Ishpeming,
Michigan, where she attempted to obtain her password.
However, Denofre was unable to get her password and, instead,
she was yelled at by the branch manager.
Following
the verbal altercation, Denofre drove to the Ishpeming Police
Department to report the incident and met with Defendant
Bianco. Denofre asked Defendant Bianco to drive her to the
Wells Fargo Bank in Ishpeming so she could retrieve her
password. But Defendant Bianco declined and told her that he
would speak with the branch manager about the incident.
On an
unspecified date, Denofre went to the Wells Fargo Bank in
Marquette, Michigan to make a formal complaint about the
branch manager at the Wells Fargo Bank in Ishpeming. While
Denofre was in Marquette, Defendant Bianco apparently went to
Denofre's mother's home and told Denofre's
brother that “he would be watching [Denofre].”
(ECF No. 4, PageID.6.) Shortly thereafter, Denofre met with
an attorney to discuss the situation, and the attorney
allegedly told Denofre that she was being targeted by the
City of Ishpeming.
Denofre
claims that the investigation by the Ishpeming Police
Department was incomplete “including the failure to
collect interview, watch surveillance footage from Wells
Fargo and anything else required.” (ECF No. 4,
PageID.7) (mistakes in original). Denofre alleges that
Defendants have violated her constitutional rights while
acting under color of state law. Denofre further alleges that
Defendants acted “recklessly and with negligence”
and that “it's a violation of policy. I didn't
go to them to be bullied or abused.” (ECF No. 4,
PageID.7.) Finally, Denofre alleges that Defendants have
defamed her because she has been “publicly accused by
this department of having a mental health disorder and called
nasty names.” (ECF No. 4, PageID.7.)
III.
Standard of Law
Under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss any
action brought in forma pauperis if the action is
(1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
A
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. Id.
The court must determine whether the complaint contains
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Id. 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.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679
(2009). 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.” Id. at 678 (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
In
addition, 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).
IV.
...