Jenkins v. Livonia Police Department et al

Filing 81

ORDER granting 68 Motion to Dismiss as to State of Michigan ONLY. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

VAN JENKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:13-cv-14489
Hon. Victoria A. Roberts
Mag. Judge Michael J. Hluchaniuk

LIVONIA POLICE DEPARTMENT,
KRISTIN CRAWFORD, KATY
PERKINS, JOHN DOE, CITY OF
LIVONIA, WAYNE COUNTY, and
STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT STATE OF MICHIGAN’S
MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. # 68)
Plaintiff Van Jenkins (“Jenkins”) filed a pro se complaint against Livonia Police
Department, Kristin Crawford, Katy Perkins, John Doe, City of Livonia, Wayne County, and
State of Michigan, Defendants, for damages stemming from Jenkins’ arrest on May 13, 2013.
Jenkins’ complaint includes claims of: violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act; Assault
and Battery; and, False Arrest and Illegal Imprisonment. Jenkins’ inclusion of the State of
Michigan (“State”) as a named party is presumably based on his belief that the State “employed
certain police officers,” but Jenkins fails to sufficiently state a claim against the State. Jenkins
requests relief from the Court for, inter alia, return of his bond, issuance of a driver’s permit, an
order re-instating his employment with Michigan Rehabilitation Services, return of his vehicle,
and payment of his medical bills. The State moves to dismiss.
When reviewing pro se complaints, the Court must employ a less stringent standard than
if the complaint had been drafted by counsel. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). But
“leniency granted to pro se petitioners . . . is not boundless.” Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710,

714 (6th Cir. 2004). Further, courts are not required to conjure unstated allegations or guess the
plaintiff’s claims. Wells v. Brown et al., 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted).
Even pro se litigants must meet minimal standards. Id.
F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) allows a court to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. A court must construe the complaint “in the light most favorable to
the plaintiff, accept all the factual allegations as true, and determine whether the plaintiff can
prove a set of facts in support of its claims that would entitle it to relief.” Albrecht v. Treon, 617
F.3d 890, 893 (6th Cir. 2010). When “determining whether to grant a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the
court primarily considers the allegations in the complaint, although matters of public record,
orders, items appearing in the record of the case, and exhibits attached to the complaint may
also be taken into account.” Amini v. Oberlin College, 259 F.3d 493, 502 (6th Cir.2001).
In general, a complaint requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief, in order 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)
(citations omitted). However, as a result of Twombly, a complaint must “state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A complaint is
plausible if “the pleaded factual content allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Magna Mirrors of Am., Inc. v. 3M Co., No.
07-10688, 2013 WL 625721, at *5 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 20, 2013) (quoting Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at
678).
The State says, “at a minimum, a complaint must put defendants on notice of what
plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests” and, in addition, “contain allegations
concerning all of the material elements to sustain a recovery under a viable legal theory.” The
State indicates that Jenkins has “failed to offer anything against the State of Michigan other that
his own conclusions.”

The Court agrees. Jenkins’ complaint fails to: make any allegations sufficient to sustain a
recovery from the State; give fair notice; and, meet the pleading standard of Rule 12(b)(6), even
giving him leniency as a pro se litigant.
The Court GRANTS the Defendant State of Michigan’s motion to dismiss.
IT IS ORDERED.
S/Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: 3/12/2015