Edwards v. Macomb County Jail

Filing 7

OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

DWAYNE EDWARDS,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 2:16-CV-11596
HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

v.
MACOMB CO. JAIL,
Defendant.
_____________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
I.
Before the Court are Plaintiff Dwayne Edward’s pro se Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint
brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as his Motions for Appointment of Counsel and
for Alternative Dispute Resolution. Plaintiff, an inmate at the Macomb County Jail in Mt.
Clemens, Michigan, has been granted leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee for
this action. In his pleadings, Plaintiff challenges the adequacy of the jail law library and his
access to legal materials, as well as the handling of his legal mail and his access to postage as an
indigent prisoner. Plaintiff names the Macomb County Jail as the defendant in this action and
seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages. Having reviewed the matter, the Court dismisses
the Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1) for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and denies the Motions for
Appointment of Counsel and Alternative Dispute Resolution as moot.

II.
Plaintiff has been granted in forma pauperis status. Under the Prison Litigation Reform
Act (“PLRA”), the Court is required to sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint
before service 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. 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
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) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S.
41, 47 (1957) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). While this notice pleading standard does require not
require detailed factual allegations, it does require more than the bare assertion of legal
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

2

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). “Factual 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).” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-56 (citations and footnote omitted).
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). A plaintiff must also allege that the deprivation of rights was intentional.
Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 348 (1986); Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 333-36
(1986).
III.
Plaintiff identifies the Macomb County Jail as the sole defendant in this action. Section
1983 imposes liability on any “person” who violates an individual’s federal constitutional or
statutory rights. It is well-settled under Michigan law that county jails, sheriff departments, and
other governmental agencies are not legal entities amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See
Coopshaw v. Lenawee Co. Sheriff's Office of Lenawee Co., No. 05-CV-72569, 2006 WL
3298898, *6-7 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 14, 2006) (citing cases); Gross v. Evans, No. 06-CV-13065,
2006 WL 2419195, *2 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 22, 2006); see also Petty v. County of Franklin, Ohio,
et al., 478 F.3d 341, 347 (6th Cir. 2007) (county sheriff’s office was not a legal entity under
Ohio law and was not subject to suit under § 1983); Castillo v. Cook Co. Mail Room Dep't., 990

3

F.2d 304, 307 (7th Cir. 1993) (per curiam). Plaintiff thus fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted in this case and his Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint against the Macomb County
Jail must be dismissed. Additionally, given this determination, his Motions for Appointment of
Counsel and for Alternative Dispute Resolution must be denied as moot.
IV.
For the reasons stated, the Court concludes that Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in his pleadings. Accordingly, the Court
DISMISSES his Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint against the Macomb County Jail. This
dismissal is without prejudice to the filing of a new complaint naming proper defendants. The
Court also DENIES his Motions for Appointment of Counsel and for Alternative Dispute
Resolution. Lastly, the Court concludes that an appeal from this decision would be frivolous and
cannot be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). This case is closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Victoria A. Roberts
VICTORIA A. ROBERTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: May 20, 2016

4