Hall v. Lapeer County Medical Examiner's Office et al

Filing 3

OPINION AND ORDER Granting 2 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis filed by Bruce J Hall and ORDER DISMISSING Complaint under 28:USC:1915(e)(2) Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland (LWag)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRUCE J. HALL,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 12-11497

LAPEER COUNTY MEDICAL
EXAMINER’S OFFICE, et al.,
Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
Plaintiff Bruce Hall initiated this pro se action on April 3, 2012, alleging an
unspecified civil rights claim against Defendants the Lapeer County Medical Examiner’s
Office, Deputy Medical Examiner Jason Parks, and Lapeer County Prosecutor Byron
Konchuh. Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, which the court
will grant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). However, after careful consideration, the court
must dismiss this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
I. STANDARD
Complaints filed in forma pauperis are subject to the screening requirements of
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863, 866 (6th Cir. 2000). Section
1915(e)(2) requires district courts to dismiss complaints that are frivolous or malicious,
that fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

To state a claim upon which relief may be granted, a complaint must allege
enough facts that, when assumed true, “raise a right to relief above the speculative
level,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007), by “stat[ing] a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face,” id. at 570. A claim is facially plausible when the plaintiff
pleads facts “allow[ing] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged,” rather than showing only “a sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949
(2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

Dismissal of a complaint under

§ 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted “is appropriate
only if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of
his claim that would entitle him to relief.” Brown, 207 F.3d at 867.
II. DISCUSSION
The court’s review of Plaintiff’s complaint reveals that it must be dismissed under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Even when viewed with the leniency the court accords to pro
se pleadings, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the filing Plaintiff
submitted to the court is nearly inscrutable. The entirety of the document labeled “civil
rights complaint” is a single, cryptic sentence: “Whos [sic] body parts are they.” A letter
Plaintiff appended to this document seemingly espouses on this statement. There,
amongst descriptions of numerous injustices Plaintiff feels he has suffered at the hands
of Lapeer County officials, Plaintiff recounts an alleged incident that occurred in 2005.
According to Plaintiff, after a relative of his died in a multiple-fatality wreck in the family
car, he and his parents received a call to pick up the vehicle; they arrived at the
impound lot only to find severed limbs and other human remains still inside of the car.
2

While these events, if they occurred, are undoubtedly horrific, the claim Plaintiff
wishes to bring is far from clear. The only legal authority mentioned in Plaintiff’s filing is
the “1968 Native American Civil Rights Act,” which the court assumes is a reference to
the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1301-03. However, this statute
requires “Indian tribe[s] . . . exercising powers of self-government” to observe certain
civil rights, and is not applicable to the county officials and county department named as
Defendants. Moreover, even if the court construed Plaintiff’s complaint as one under 28
U.S.C. § 1983, it was filed far outside of the three-year statute of limitations applicable
to such actions in the state of Michigan. Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(10); Carroll v.
Wilkerson, 782 F.2d 44, 44 (6th Cir. 1986) (per curiam). See generally Wilson v.
Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 276 (1985) (holding that state statute of limitations for personal
injury actions applies to § 1983 claims). Thus, even under the most generous
construction, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007) (“If the allegations [in a complaint] . . .
show that relief is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, the complaint is subject
to dismissal for failure to state a claim.”).
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed
in forma pauperis [Dkt. # 2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: April 30, 2012

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, April 30, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
[phone]

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\12-11497.HALL.Dismiss1915.set.wpd

4