Patrick v. State of Michigan et al

Filing 7

ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING CASE Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

JERRY PATRICK,
Case Number: 2:14-CV-13785
HON. VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF MICHIGAN and
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendants.
/

OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
I.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Jerry Patrick’s pro se civil rights complaint
filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding without prepayment of the filing fee
in this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Plaintiff claims that he is being excluded
from training for certain desirable prison jobs based upon his race. He names two
defendants, the State of Michigan and the Michigan Department of Corrections. Plaintiff
seeks monetary and injunctive relief. For the reasons which follow, the complaint is
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
II.
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 Atl. 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.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee for
this action. 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 (1989).
2

To state a federal civil rights claim, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) he was
deprived 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 (1978). A pro se civil rights
complaint is to be construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).
III.
Plaintiff names two defendants, the state of Michigan and the Michigan
Department of Corrections. 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. See Will v. Michigan Dep’t of
State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (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 enacted 42 U.S.C. §
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). Thus, Plaintiff may not maintain a § 1983 suit against the state of
Michigan or the Michigan Department of Corrections.

IV.
3

The complaint is summarily dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and
1915A(b).
SO ORDERED.
S/Victoria A. Roberts
VICTORIA A. ROBERTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: 2/5/2015

4