Cunegin v. City of Ypsilanti Police Department

Filing 7

OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL. Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (DTof)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

BOBBIE J. CUNEGIN, #800536,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 2:15-CV-10145
HONORABLE PAUL D. BORMAN

v.
CITY OF YPSILANTI POLICE DEP’T,
Defendant.
___________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
I. INTRODUCTION
Michigan prisoner Bobbie J. Cunegin (“Plaintiff”) has filed a pro se civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his two-page complaint, Plaintiff asserts that
he was subject to excessive force and denied medical care by police officers when
arrested following a domestic dispute in Ypsilanti, Michigan on February 12, 2013. He
names the Ypsilanti Police Department as the defendant in this action. He does not
indicate in what capacity he is suing the defendant, nor does he indicate what relief he
seeks in this case. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed without prepayment of the
fees and costs for this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
II. DISCUSSION
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (“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). The Court is similarly
required to dismiss a complaint seeking redress against government entities, officers, and
employees which 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. A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis
in law or in fact. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
A pro se civil rights complaint is to be construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404
U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). Nonetheless, 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)
(citation omitted). While this notice pleading standard does not require “detailed” factual
allegations, it does require more than the bare assertion of legal principles or conclusions.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Rule 8 “demands more than an unadorned, the
defendant-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).
2

“Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual
enhancement.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
To state a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 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); Harris v.
Circleville, 583 F.3d 356, 364 (6th Cir. 2009).
Plaintiff's complaint against the Ypsilanti Police Department is subject to
dismissal. It is well-established that a civil rights plaintiff must allege the personal
involvement of a defendant to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and that liability
cannot be established based upon a theory of respondeat superior or vicarious liability.
Monell v. Department of Social Svs., 436 U.S. 658, 691-92 (1978); Everson v. Leis, 556
F.3d 484, 495 (6th Cir. 2009); see also Taylor v. Michigan Dep't. of Corrections, 69 F.3d
716, 727-28 (6th Cir. 1995) (plaintiff must allege facts showing that defendant
participated, condoned, encouraged, or knowingly acquiesced in alleged misconduct to
establish liability). Plaintiff makes no factual allegations against the Ypsilanti Police
Department. His complaint against the Ypsilanti Police Department is thus subject to
dismissal.
Additionally, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8(a)’s requirement 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
3

sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), (3). Plaintiff does not include a demand for any relief in
his complaint. His complaint is thus subject to dismissal for this reason as well.
III. CONCLUSION
The Court concludes that Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as to the named defendant and that his complaint fails to
comply with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the Court
DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the civil rights complaint as to the named defendant
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). This dismissal is without prejudice to
the filing of a new complaint naming an appropriate defendant or defendants and
specifying the relief sought in the case. This case is CLOSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Paul D. Borman
PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: February 20, 2015

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each
attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on February
20, 2015.

s/Deborah Tofil
Case Manager

4