McCrory v. Adair

Filing 6

ORDER of Summary Dismissal. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (JOwe)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANTHONY LEWIS MCCRORY,
Case Number: 2:12-CV-10056

Plaintiff,

HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD

v.
JAMES P. ADAIR,
Defendant.
/

ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
I. Introduction
This matter is pending before the Court on the pro se civil rights complaint filed
by Anthony Lewis McCrory (“Plaintiff”). Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the St.
Clair County Jail. Plaintiff names a single defendant, St. Clair County Circuit Court
Judge James P. Adair. The complaint, which is hand-written, is difficult to read. It
appears that Plaintiff is a pre-trial detainee claiming that, if Judge Adair presides over his
trial, he will not receive a fair trial because Judge Adair is biased against him. He claims
that Judge Adair violated his rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth,
Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments in a prior criminal proceeding over which Judge
Adair presided. Plaintiff seeks removal of Judge Adair from his criminal proceeding. He
also wants the “rev. court to oversee this blatant violation of my rights by the state.”
Complaint at 4.

II. Standard of Review
Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee for
this action due to his indigence. 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 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).
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, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1831-32 (1989).
While a complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” a plaintiff's
obligation to provide grounds entitling him to relief “requires more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)
(internal and end citations omitted). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right
to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the
complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Id. at 555-56, 127 S. Ct. at 1965 (citations
and footnote omitted).
2

III. Discussion
To state a federal civil rights claim, a plaintiff must show that: (1) the defendant is
a person who acted under color of state or federal law, and (2) the defendant’s conduct
deprived the plaintiff of a federal right, privilege, or immunity. See Flagg Bros. v.
Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 155-57 (1978); Brock v. McWherter, 94 F.3d 242, 244 (6th Cir.
1996). A pro se civil rights complaint is to be construed liberally. See Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Jones v. Duncan, 840 F.2d 359, 361 (6th Cir. 1988).
Despite the liberal pleading standard accorded pro se plaintiffs, the Court finds that the
complaint is subject to summary dismissal.
Judicial officers have long enjoyed absolute judicial immunity from liability for
monetary damages for conduct within the scope of a court’s jurisdiction. Stump v.
Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 364 (1978). In addition, “[b]y enacting the 1996 Federal Courts
Improvement Act . . . Congress . . . expanded the ambit of judicial immunity by amending
§ 1983 so as to prohibit injunctive relief against a judicial officer.” Coleman v. Governor
of Michigan, 413 F. App’x 866, 873 (6th Cir. 2011). Judge Adair is immune from suit
under § 1983.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's complaint lacks
an arguable basis in law and fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint is summarily dismissed
with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b).
3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that if Plaintiff elects to appeal this decision, he
may not proceed without prepayment of the fees and costs on appeal because an appeal
would be frivolous and could not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3);
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445, 82 S.Ct. 917, 921 (1962).

S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
United States District Judge
Dated: February 29, 2012
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon Anthony
McCrory, 115122, St. Clair County Intervention Center, 1170 Michigan, Port Huron, MI
48060 on February 29, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

4