Price v. Camp Brighton
ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL Signed by District Judge Gerald E. Rosen. (JOwe)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case Number: 2:14-CV-11456
HONORABLE GERALD E. ROSEN
ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
This matter is pending before the Court on the pro se civil rights complaint filed
by Nicole Price. Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the Michigan Department of
Corrections, alleges she was exposed to contaminated water while housed at the Camp
Brighton facility. She names a single defendant, Camp Brighton. Plaintiff has been
granted leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee for this action. She seeks
monetary damages. For the reasons that follow, the complaint will be dismissed under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
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 Atlantic 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, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(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).
Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee for
this action due to her 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). 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 federal civil rights claim, a plaintiff must allege (1) the deprivation 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, 98 S. Ct. 1729 (1978). A pro se civil rights
complaint is to be construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).
Plaintiff names a single defendant, Camp Brighton. To state a claim under § 1983,
a plaintiff must allege that the claimed federal violation was committed by a person acting
under color of state law. Flagg Bros., 436 U.S. at 155-57. A state prison facility is not a
person or legal entity capable of being sued under § 1983. See Poole v. Michigan
Reformatory, No. 09-cv-13093, 2009 WL 2960412, *1 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 11, 2009)
(holding that prison facilities are not “persons” or legal entities subject to suit under §
1983); McGlone v. Warren Correctional Institution, No. 1:13-cv-126, 2013 WL 1563265,
*3 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 12, 2013) (same).
Moreover, Plaintiff fails to satisfy the minimal pleading requirements because
basic pleading requirements dictate that a plaintiff must attribute factual allegations to
particular defendants. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (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). Plaintiff
simply states that she was exposed to contaminated water while incarcerated at Camp
Brighton. She alleges no specific injury associated with this exposure nor does she
attribute any factual allegations against a particular defendant. Accordingly, her
complaint fails to satisfy the minimal pleading requirements.
For the reasons stated, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Accordingly, the Court
DISMISSES the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B). 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); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610-11 (6th
s/Gerald E. Rosen
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: June 9, 2014
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or
counsel of record on June 9, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
Case Manager, (313) 234-5135
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?