United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO
DISMISS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is presently before the Court on (1) the motion of
defendants Henry Ford Health System, Henry Ford Alliance
Health, Henry Ford Allegiance Hospital, David Halsey MD,
Heather McLeod, Tanya Sanford RN, Brent Walker RN, Sameer
Ahmen MD, Robin Buocha RN, Jeremee Wood EDT, and Ashley
Friess EDT (“the hospital defendants”) to dismiss
[docket entry 6]; (2) the motion of defendants Jackson
County, Jackson County Sheriff's Department, Jackson
County Sheriff Steven Rand, and Jackson County Deputy Sheriff
Hillary Jenski (“the Jackson defendants”) to
dismiss [docket entry 7]; and (3) plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment [docket entry 12]. Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR
7.1(f)(2), the Court shall decide these motions without a
pro se complaint alleges, in short, that defendants - a
hospital and health system, two of its physicians, three of
its nurses, one of its emergency department technicians, its
patient representative, one of its patient care-givers, as
well as Jackson County, its sheriff and one of its
sheriff's deputies, and an entity he calls The Original
Tear Group - conspired to murder him when he entered the
hospital for emergency care in February 2018. Plaintiff claims
the nurses, defendants Sanford and Walker, attempted to kill
him by injecting him with insulin (plaintiff says he is
diabetic), but their attempt failed when he “awoke,
refreshed & alert” and demanded to be discharged.
Compl. ¶¶ 3-4. He further claims that all of the
above-mentioned hospital personnel were engaged in this
“elaborate plot to kill me” at the behest of
county officials who had “vowed to retaliate by killing
me; even if it took ‘20 years'” after
plaintiff exposed their involvement in some kind of
wrongdoing connected with a “school bus parking lot
accident” in 1996 in which his son was injured.
Id. ¶ 7.
asserts claims against all of the defendants for violating
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
(“RICO”) Act; for violating federal criminal
statutes concerning conspiracy to commit murder; and for
violating his Fourteenth Amendment rights. For relief, he
seeks “in excess of” $50 million in damages and
“a complete investigation into the actions of all
Defendants named herein and prosecute all Defendants to the
full extent of the law.” Id. at 31.
make a number of convincing arguments as to why the complaint
in this matter must be dismissed. First, they correctly note
that the complaint does not meet basic pleading standards.
“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter .
. . to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “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 678. “Threadbare recitals
of all the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id.
“Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to
relief above the speculative level.” Twombly,
550 U.S. at 555. These standards are not met in the present
case because the complaint consists of conclusory statements
and allegations that are simply not plausible.
Plaintiff's elaborate conspiracy theory that purportedly
connects the many defendants in an evil plot dating back to
1996 is, quite simply, delusional, absurd, and unbelievable.
specific claims fail for other reasons as well. A plaintiff
asserting a RICO claim must allege that he has been
“injured in his business or property.”
Jackson v. Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 731
F.3d 556, 563-64 (6th Cir. 2013). Plaintiff makes no such
allegation in this case. Therefore plaintiff has failed to
state a RICO claim (Count I).
claim of “Federal Criminal Conspiracy to Commit
Murder” (Count II) fails to state a claim because
plaintiff relies solely on 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111-19,
and the case law is clear that a private right of action may
not be premised on criminal statutes. See, e.g., Am.
Postal Workers Union v. Indep. Postal Sys. of Am., Inc.,
481 F.2d 90, 93 (6th Cir. 1973); Malloy v. Watchtower
Bible & Tract Soc'y, No. CV 17-10635, 2017 WL
6539056, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 21, 2017). Therefore,
plaintiff has failed to state a claim under this count.
Fourteenth Amendment claim (Count III) fails as to all of the
hospital defendants because, as plaintiff concedes in his
response brief, they are not state actors. The Jackson County
defendants are state actors, but the complaint does not
allege how any of them violated plaintiff's due process
or equal protection rights. Plaintiff's only mention of
Sheriff Rand is that the hospital defendants felt emboldened
to proceed with their attempted murder plot because Rand,
“who was into making ‘Snuff Videos' . . .
would protect everyone that helped or became involved in
killing me.” Compl. ¶ 8. As noted above,
allegations of this nature are delusional and implausible.
Plaintiff's only mention of Deputy Sheriff Hillary Jenski
is that she declined his request “to file a attempted
murder complaint, ” id. ¶ 65, an apparent
reference to the alleged attempt on plaintiff's life
during his hospitalization. Plaintiff had no constitutional
right to file such a complaint. Further, in the absence of
any cognizable claim against a Jackson County employee, no
claim can be maintained against the county itself. See
City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799 (1986).
only remaining motion is plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment, in which he asks that the Court sanction defense
counsel for “making false claims and assertions”
in their motions to dismiss. This is no basis for seeking
summary judgment, and the Court finds nothing improper in the
motion papers defendants have filed. Accordingly, IT IS
ORDERED that defendants' motions to dismiss are granted.
FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed sua sponte as
to defendant The Original Tear Group, as plaintiff has not
shown it is an entity with capacity to be sued.
FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment is denied.
 The hospital records indicate that
plaintiff lost consciousness and fell at home. His family
brought him to the emergency department at Henry Ford
Allegiance Hospital in Jackson, Michigan. After two days,
plaintiff was discharged in stable condition. ...