Carethers et al v. Funches
Filing
5
OPINION AND ORDER Summarily Dismissing the Complaint UnderUNDER 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (Sandusky, K)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BENJAMIN WATT CARETHERS,
ARTHUR BLANK, RICKY WILLIAMS,
and NICHOLAS ROBERTSON,
Civil Case No. 15-14016
Plaintiffs,
HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH
v.
OFFICER FUNCHES,
Defendant.
______________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT
UNDER 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter has come before the Court on a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Dkt. 1). The four plaintiffs (Benjamin Watt Carethers, Arthur Blank, Ricky Williams, and
Nicholas Robertson) were state prisoners at the Robert Cotton Correctional Facility in Jackson,
Michigan during the time in question. Only Plaintiff Benjamin Watt Carethers signed the
complaint and submitted it to the Court for filing.
The sole defendant is Ms. Funches, a state correctional officer at the Cotton Correctional
Facility. Carethers alleges that Funches made derogatory and sexual remarks to him, created a
hostile environment, and put his safety at risk. Compl. at 3. Carethers alleges that these
activities amounted to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment and
deprived him of his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the law.
Id.
Plaintiffs Blank, Williams, and Robertson apparently were named because they witnessed the
alleged conduct. Id. Carethers seeks $25,000.00 in damages. Id.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 requires federal district courts to screen a
prisoner’s complaint and to dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a
claim for which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b); Flanory v. Bonn, 604 F.3d 249, 252
(6th Cir. 2010).
“In determining whether a prisoner has failed to state a claim, [courts] construe his
complaint in the light most favorable to him, accept his factual allegations as true, and determine
whether he can prove any set of facts that would entitle him to relief.” Harbin-Bey v. Rutter, 420
F.3d 571, 575 (6th Cir. 2005). While a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations,”
the “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on
the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-556 (2007). In other words, “a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
III. ANALYSIS
A. Plaintiffs Blank, Williams, and Robertson
2
The Court begins its analysis by noting that Plaintiffs Arthur Blank, Ricky Williams, and
Nicholas Robertson did not sign the complaint. They also did not pay their share of the filing fee
or submit applications to proceed without prepayment of the fees and costs for this action.
Furthermore, their only involvement in this case is that they supposedly witnessed Officer
Funches’ conduct toward Carethers.
Section 1983 provides:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,
custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia,
subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or
other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be
liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper
proceeding for redress . . . .
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A “§ 1983 cause of action, by virtue of the explicit language of the section
itself, is a personal action cognizable only by the party whose civil rights had been violated . . . .”
Jaco v. Bloechle, 739 F.2d 239, 242 (6th Cir. 1984).
The facts, as alleged in the complaint before the Court, fail to demonstrate that Officer
Funches did anything to violate the civil rights of plaintiffs Blank, Williams, or Robertson.
Thus, Blank, Williams, and Robertson cannot state a claim against Funches, and Carethers at no
point had standing to assert a claim on their behalf. Barnett v. Luttrell, 414 F. App’x 784, 787
(6th Cir. 2011). The Court, therefore, dismisses the claims of Plaintiffs Arthur Blank, Ricky
Williams, and Nicholas Robertson.
B. Plaintiff Carethers’ Allegations
Carethers has standing because he alleges that Officer Funches personally violated his
constitutional rights. Nevertheless, the essence of Carethers’ complaint is that Funches made
3
derogatory and inappropriate remarks to him. Verbal abuse and harassment, however, “do not
constitute the type of infliction of pain that the Eighth Amendment prohibits,” Johnson v.
Unknown Dellatifa, 357 F.3d 539, 546 (6th Cir. 2004), and a state official’s verbal harassment of
a prisoner is “insufficient to support a section 1983 claim for relief,” Wingo v. Tennessee Dep’t
of Corr., 499 F. App’x 453, 455 (2012). Defendant Carethers, therefore, has no right to relief
from Officer Funches based upon the facts he alleges with respect to his verbal abuse claim.
Similarly, Carethers’ claim that Funches “put [his] safety at risk” must be dismissed, as it
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Although it does not require detailed
factual allegations, stating a claim “demands more than an unadorned, the defendant-unlawfullyharmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Yet this is all that Carethers provides. He does
not allege a single thing about Funches’ behavior or how his safety was put at risk. Accordingly,
he has failed to state a claim.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons given above, the complaint also fails to state a plausible claim for which
relief may be granted. The Court, therefore, summarily dismisses the complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The Court also certifies that an appeal from
this order would be frivolous and could not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3);
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 442-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 28, 2016
Detroit, Michigan
s/Mark A. Goldsmith
MARK A. GOLDSMITH
United States District Judge
4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and
any unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to their respective email or First Class
U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on January 28, 2016.
s/Karri Sandusky
Case Manager
5
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?