Dankert v. Camp Brighton Prison et al

Filing 8

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE Signed by District Judge Patrick J. Duggan. (MOre)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SPRING DANKERT, #384783,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:14-CV-10692
Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

v.
CAMP BRIGHTON SUPERVISOR,
WARDEN & HEALTH INSPECTORS,
Defendants.
/

OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
I.
The Court has before it Plaintiff Spring Dankert’s pro se civil rights
complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a Michigan prisoner
currently confined at the Huron Valley Women’s Prison in Ypsilanti, Michigan. In
her complaint, Plaintiff alleges that she had to “drink, bath[e], eat, brush teeth with
contaminated sewage water” while confined at Camp Brighton in Pinckney,
Michigan in 2001 and 2006. She names the Camp Brighton supervisor, warden,
and health inspectors as Defendants and indicates that she is suing them in their
official capacities. She seeks compensatory damages. Plaintiff has been granted

leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee for this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a). (ECF No. 7.)
II.
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 on
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.
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31, 112 S. Ct. 1728, 1733 (1992); Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1831 (1989).
III.
Having reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court finds that it is subject to
summary dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b) and 1915A on the basis of
Eleventh Amendment immunity. Plaintiff is suing un-named prison officials
2

(identified as the Camp Brighton supervisor, warden, and health inspectors) in their
official capacities and seeks monetary damages. The Eleventh Amendment bars
civil rights actions against a state and its agencies and departments unless the state
has waived its immunity and consented to suit or Congress has abrogated that
immunity. Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66, 109 S. Ct.
2304, 2309-10 (1989). “The state of Michigan . . . has not consented to being sued
in civil rights actions in the federal courts,” Johnson v. Unknown Dellatifa, 357
F.3d 539, 545 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing Abick v. Michigan, 803 F.2d 874, 877 (6th
Cir. 1986)), and Congress did not abrogate state sovereign immunity when it
passed § 1983. Chaz Const., LLC v. Codell, 137 F. App’x 735, 743 (6th Cir.
2005). Eleventh Amendment immunity “bars all suits, whether for injunctive,
declaratory or monetary relief” against a state and its agencies. Thiokol Corp. v.
Dep’t of Treasury, 987 F.2d 376, 381 (6th Cir. 1993). Eleventh Amendment
immunity also applies to state employees sued in their official capacities. See
Colvin v. Caruso, 605 F.3d 282, 289 (6th Cir. 2010) (citing Cady v. Arenac Co.,
574 F.3d 334, 344 (6th Cir. 2009)).
Defendants are employees of the Michigan Department of Corrections and
are sued in their official capacities for damages. Therefore, they are entitled to
Eleventh Amendment immunity and Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed.
3

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);
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Court concludes that an appeal from
this decision 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, 82 S. Ct. 917, 921
(1962).
Dated: March 31, 2014

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copy to:
Spring Dankert, #384783
Women’s Huron Valley Correctional Facility
3201 Bemis Road
Ypsilanti, MI 48197-0911

4