Franklin v. Federspiel et al

Filing 6

ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING CASE Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRIAN FRANKLIN,
185570
Plaintiff,

Case Number: 2:11-CV-12483

v.

HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

WILLIAM FEDERSPIEL and SAGINAW
COUNTY,
Defendants.
/
ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
Plaintiff Brian Franklin is confined at the Saginaw County Jail in Saginaw,
Michigan. He filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
proceeds without prepayment of the filing fee for civil actions under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(1). His claims concern an alleged delay in medical care during his incarceration
at the Saginaw County Jail and he seeks monetary relief.
The complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.
I.
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 Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson,
355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). While this notice pleading standard
does not require “detailed” factual allegations, Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, it does require
more than the bare assertion of legal conclusions or “an unadorned, thedefendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

U.S.

, 129 S. Ct.

1937, 1949 (2009). “A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555). “Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of
‘further factual enhancement.’” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at
557).
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), the Court is required to sua
sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint before service on a defendant if it decides
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 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Similarly, the Court is required to dismiss a complaint seeking
redress against government entities, officers, and employees that 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(b). A
complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) he was
2

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. Flagg Bros. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 155-57 (1978). A pro se civil rights
complaint is to be construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).
II.
Plaintiff alleges that, on April 17, 2011, he tripped over a floor bunk while
incarcerated at the Saginaw County Jail, injuring his ankle. Plaintiff claims that he had to
send twenty-four requests for attention to medical staff before he was finally seen. When
finally seen by medical personnel, x-rays were not ordered. After approximately one
month, x-rays were taken and revealed that Plaintiff had a broken ankle.
Plaintiff’s claims against William Federspiel, the Saginaw County Sheriff, fail to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff makes no specific allegations
against Federspiel and appears to be basing his allegations on the actions of medical staff.
The doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply in § 1983 lawsuits to impute liability
onto supervisory personnel, see Monell v. Department of Social Services of New York,
436 U.S. 658, 691-95 (1978), unless it is shown “that the supervisor encouraged the
specific incident of misconduct or in some other way directly participated in it.” Bellamy
v. Bradley, 729 F.2d 416, 421 (6th Cir. 1984). “At a minimum a plaintiff must show that
the official at least implicitly authorized, approved, or knowingly acquiesced in the
unconstitutional conduct . . .” Hays v. Jefferson County, Ky., 668 F.2d 869, 874 (6th Cir.
1982). Plaintiff fails to allege any specific conduct by Federspiel that would support a
3

finding that Federspiel directly participated in, encouraged, or implicitly authorized or
approved the alleged unconstitutional conduct. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a
claims against Federspiel.
The other named defendant is Saginaw County. Plaintiff makes no specific
allegations against Saginaw County. The County is named as a party, but not mentioned
in any other capacity. Basic pleading requirements dictate that a plaintiff must attribute
factual allegations to particular defendants. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007) (holding that, in order to state a claim, Plaintiff must make sufficient
allegations to give a defendant fair notice of the claim); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). A complaint
must allege each defendant’s personal involvement with the alleged violation of federal
rights. See Frazier v. Michigan, 41 F. App’x 762, 764 (6th Cir. 2002) (dismissing claims
where complaint did not allege which of the named defendants were personally involved
in or responsible for each alleged violation of rights); Griffin v. Montgomery, No.
00-3402, 200 WL 1800569, at *2 (6th Cir. Nov. 30, 2000) (requiring allegations of
personal involvement against each defendant). Moreover, conclusory allegations are
insufficient to state a civil rights claim under § 1983. See, e.g ., Lanier v. Bryant, 332
F.3d 999, 1007 (6th Cir.2003).
Because Plaintiff fails to make specific allegations against Saginaw County, he
falls short of the minimal pleading standards, and fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted.
III.
4

Based upon the foregoing analysis, the Court concludes that Plaintiff failed to
state claims upon which relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Accordingly, the
Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the complaint. The Court also concludes that an
appeal from this order would be frivolous and cannot be taken in good faith. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962); McGore v.
Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610-11 (6th Cir. 1997).
SO ORDERED.

S/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: July 25, 2011
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this
document was served on the attorneys of record
and Brian Franklin by electronic means or U.S.
Mail on July 25, 2011.
s/Carol A. Pinegar
Deputy Clerk

5