Johnson v. Robinson et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER of Summary Dismissal. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (CPic)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHARON JOHNSON,
Case Number: 2:15-CV-12952
HON. ARTHUR J. TARNOW

Plaintiff,
v.
MARCUS ROBINSON, ET AL.,
Defendant.
/

OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
I.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Charon Johnson’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’s claims relate to the
revocation of his parole. He seeks monetary 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).
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
2

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’s complaint challenges the revocation of his parole. He states that he was
released to parole on December 4, 2014, after serving a three year term of imprisonment
for armed robbery. Three months later, he was charged with violating his parole when a
firearm was found at his residence. Plaintiff was found guilty and his parole revoked.
Plaintiff argues that he lived in a two-family home and the firearm was not found in the
portion of the home where he lived. He claims to have no knowledge of the firearm.
The complaint necessarily challenges the validity of the parole revocation. A
claim under § 1983 is an appropriate remedy for a state prisoner challenging a condition
of his imprisonment. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499 (1973). In Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), the Supreme Court established that a state prisoner does
not state a cognizable civil rights claim challenging his imprisonment if a ruling on his
claim would necessarily render his continuing confinement invalid, until and unless the
reason for his continued confinement has been reversed on direct appeal, called into
question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
or otherwise invalidated. Id. at 486-87. Because Plaintiff has not achieved a favorable
termination of his criminal case, this complaint is barred by Heck.

3

Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
SO ORDERED.

S/Arthur J. Tarnow
Arthur J. Tarnow
Senior United States District Judge
Dated: January 5, 2016
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon parties/counsel of
record on January 5, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Catherine A. Pickles
Judicial Assistant

4