United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
COHN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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lied to his parole officer, his parole was revoked and he was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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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).