United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT
J. TARNOW, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter has come before the Court on plaintiff Jorge Gabriel
Espinoza Vallecillo's pro se civil rights
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a state
prisoner at the St. Louis Correctional Facility in St. Louis,
Michigan. The defendants are the People of the State of
Michigan, one municipal detective, one municipal police
officer, four court-appointed attorneys, one prosecuting
attorney, and one state-court judge.
filed his complaint in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California. United States District
Judge George H. Wu transferred the case to the Eastern
District of Michigan on November 8, 2019, because the events
and omissions giving rise to Plaintiff's claims occurred
in this District and the defendants are located here. (Order
Transferring Action, ECF No. 2.) Thus, the Eastern District
of Michigan is the proper venue for Plaintiff's case.
Court has screened the complaint and concluded that
Plaintiff's allegations are unsubstantial, frivolous, and
devoid of merit. Accordingly, the complaint must be
noted above, Plaintiff is a Michigan prisoner. He is suing
the People of the State of Michigan and the following
individuals in their personal and official capacities:
detective Michael Dowdy of the Detroit (Michigan) Police
Department; police officer Richard Schwab of the Detroit
Police Department; court-appointed attorneys Sanford
Schulman, Jeffrey Knoche, Andrew Dimaggio, and Angeles R.
Meneses; prosecuting attorney Jenifer Douglas; and Wayne
County Circuit Court Judge Paul John Cusick. (Compl., ECF No.
1, PageID. 3-5.)
alleges that, on August 11, 2017, Detroit police officers
arrested him without a warrant and jailed him on charges of
(1) reckless driving, causing death, and (2) failure to stop
at the scene of an accident. Id., PageID. 6. The
charges arose from an incident on August 6, 2017, when the
driver of a 2005 Buick Rendezvous struck and killed a
pedestrian in Detroit. Id., Page ID 8. According to
Plaintiff, there is no evidence that he or his car were
involved in the accident. Id.
further alleges that: Detective Dowdy and Officer Schwab took
the stand at his trial and made false statements; attorney
Schulman misrepresented his case; prosecuting attorney
Douglas failed to provide him with information for trial and
committed other violations; Judge Cusick abused his
discretion; attorney Knoche misrepresented Plaintiff's
case and made decisions against Plaintiff's wishes; and
attorney Dimaggio failed to follow (sic) motions.
Id., PageID. 3-5. Plaintiff states that, on November
9, 2018, he was sentenced to prison for ten to fifteen years,
id., PageID. 6, and attorney Meneses is
misrepresenting his case on appeal and completely
disregarding him, id., PageID. 5.
legal claims appear to be that he was denied his rights to a
speedy trial, to be well-represented in legal proceedings, to
receive information before trial, to be properly dressed
during trial, to have a competent Spanish interpreter, to
represent himself, and to have a fair trial. Id.,
PageID.6. Plaintiff wants the Court to overturn his
convictions, dismiss the charges against him with prejudice,
and set him free. Id., PageID. 7. Plaintiff also
seeks a full investigation of the evidence related to his
case. He contends that many frivolous and malicious actions
occurred, and because he is sure that corrupt officers will
kill him and his family at any time, he wants to be released
to a higher authority. Id.
Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 requires a federal
district court to screen a prisoner's complaint and to
dismiss the complaint if the allegations are frivolous,
malicious, fail to state a claim for which relief can be
granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. Flanory v. Bonn, 604 F.3d
249, 252 (6th Cir. 2010) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e) and 1915A and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e); Smith v.
Campbell, 250 F.3d 1032, 1036 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A). “District
courts are required to screen all civil cases
brought by prisoners, regardless of whether the inmate paid
the full filing fee, is a pauper, is pro se, or is
represented by counsel, as the statute does not differentiate
between civil actions brought by prisoners.” In re
Prison Litigation Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131, 1134 (6th
Cir. 1997) (emphasis added).
prepaid the filing fee for this action, and courts may not
summarily dismiss a prisoner's fee-paid complaint under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) because that section applies only
to complaints filed in forma pauperis. Benson v.
O'Brian, 179 F.3d 1014, 1015-17 (6th Cir. 1999).
Benson, however, does not prohibit a federal court
from screening a prisoner's fee-paid civil rights
complaint against a governmental official or entity under
§1915A. Hyland v. Clinton, 3 Fed.Appx.
478, 478-79 (6th Cir. 2001). Moreover, a federal
“district court may, at any time, sua sponte
dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure when the allegations of a complaint are totally
implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of
merit, or no longer open to discussion.” Apple v.
Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999). A complaint is
frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact.
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
complaint is unsubstantial, frivolous, and devoid of merit
because it challenges his convictions and confinement in
prison. When, as here, “a state prisoner is challenging
the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and
the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to
immediate release or a speedier release from that
imprisonment, his sole ...