Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Stevenson v. Matos

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

November 5, 2019

JUNIOR DOUGLAS STEVENSON, Plaintiff,
v.
DET. JOSEPH MATOS, Defendant.

          ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL

          AVERN COHN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. Introduction

         This is a civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff Junior Douglas Stevenson, proceeding pro se and without prepayment of the filing fee, is suing Detroit Police Detective Joseph Matos. Plaintiff asserts that because Matos lied to his parole officer, his parole was revoked and he was returned to Michigan Department of Corrections custody.

         As explained below, Plaintiff has not stated a viable claim for relief against Matos. In addition, to the extent Plaintiff alleges that he has not received the process he is due in terms of his parole revocation, his recourse is not the federal courts, but a return to the state courts with a complaint of mandamus. Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed.

         II. The Complaint

         Plaintiff states that he was on parole for an unspecified conviction in September 2018. When he reported to his parole officer, he was taken into custody by Detroit Police Officers, and “served parole violation charges.” Compl. at 6, ECF No. 1, PageID.6. Plaintiff was returned to MDOC custody on October 4, 2018. Id. at 17. Plaintiff asserts that his arrest and alleged parole violation resulted from Matos' false statements to his parole officer that a shooting victim in another crime identified Plaintiff in a photo lineup. Id. at 5, 17. Plaintiff states that Matos did not follow policy by using video or audio to document the alleged photo lineup in which Plaintiff was identified. Id. at 5, 17.

         Plaintiff states he received a preliminary hearing on October 12, 2018, but states that no charges have otherwise been filed to date. Id. at 7. Nor does he mention having received a parole revocation hearing. Plaintiff states he wrote and/or spoke to his parole agents Joseph Lambert and Bell (first name unknown) and parole supervisor Barbara Newland in October and November 2018 without recourse. See id. at 7, 11, 12. This action was filed on September 11, 2019. ECF No. 1.

         Plaintiff requests relief in the form of Matos' termination as a police officer, $10, 000, 000 in damages, and recognition of his mental anguish. Id. at 8.

         III. Legal Standards

         The Court is required to dismiss sua sponte 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. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court is similarly required to dismiss a complaint seeking redress against government entities, officers, and employees which it finds to be frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

         A pro se civil rights complaint is to be construed liberally. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). Federal 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 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citation omitted). However, “'[a]ll pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice.” Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94 (quoting Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(f)).

         To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) he or she 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. Robertson v. Lucas, 753 F.3d 606, 614 (6th Cir. 2014).

         IV. Discussion

         A. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.