Belser et al v. Evans et al

Filing 11

ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL and Denying Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARVIN BELSER, SR., ET AL.,
Case Number: 2:16-cv-12792
HON. VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

Plaintiff,
v.
VONDA EVANS, ET AL.,
Defendants.
/

ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
I.

Introduction
Plaintiff Marvin Belser, Sr., a state inmate currently incarcerated at the Carson City

Correctional Facility in Carson City, Michigan, has filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. He names two defendants, Wayne County Circuit Court Judges Vonda Evans and
Sheila Ann Gibson Manning. He challenges their decisions related to a child protective
services case and his criminal trial. He also argues that their actions violated Michigan’s
Public Health Code. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and monetary relief. The complaint will be
dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted
II.

Additional Plaintiffs
In addition to Marvin Belser, Sr., the complaint names five additional plaintiffs.

However, Belser, Sr., is the only plaintiff to have signed the complaint and the only plaintiff

to have submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis. There is no indication that
any of the additional plaintiffs were even aware of Belser’s intent to file this case. These
plaintiffs, therefore, are dismissed without prejudice.
III.

Plaintiff’s Motions
Since the filing of his complaint, Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Leave to Amend

Complaint (ECF No. 7), a second Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 8), a
Motion to Submit Relevant Documents (ECF No. 9), and a Motion to Submit More Relevant
Documents (ECF No. 10). Plaintiff’s motions for leave to amend complaint seek to expand
the relief he seeks in this action. As discussed below, the Court finds that the complaint fails
to state a claim for relief under § 1983 and declines to exercise jurisdiction over the state-law
claims. Amendment of the relief section, therefore, would be futile and the motions are
denied. Plaintiff’s motions to submit additional exhibits are granted and the documents
attached to the motions are accepted for filing.
IV.

Standard
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
2

the

bare

assertion

of

legal

conclusions

or

“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). “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 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
3

construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).
V.

Discussion
As noted, Plaintiff’s complaint focuses on the actions of state court judges Evans and

Gibson Manning. Judges are absolutely immune from civil rights suits when acting in a
judicial capacity unless they act in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. See Mireles v. Waco,
502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991). Whether an action is “judicial” depends on the “‘nature of the act
itself, i.e., whether it is a function normally performed by a judge,’” and “‘the expectations
of the parties, i.e., whether they dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity.’” Id. at 13,
quoting Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 362 (1978). A judge’s acts do not become nonjudicial simply because they are erroneous or “in excess of his authority”; if that were the
case, then “any mistake of a judge in excess of his authority would become a ‘nonjudicial’
act, because an improper or erroneous act cannot be said to be normally performed by a
judge.” Id. at 12. Plaintiff complains of Judge Evans’ and Judge Gibson Mannings’ actions
related to a child custody proceeding and his criminal trial, including evidence Plaintiff
argues was improperly considered at his criminal trial and an incorrect verdict reached in that
trial. Plaintiff’s allegations concern actions normally performed by a judge. Therefore, these
defendants are immune from suit under § 1983.
In addition, Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ actions violated various provisions of
Michigan’s Public Health Code. Section 1983 does not provide redress for a violation of a
state law. Pyles v. Raisor, 60 F.3d 1211, 1215 (6th Cir. 1995). Plaintiff’s assertion that
Defendants violated state law therefore fails to state a claim under § 1983. Moreover, to the
4

extent that Plaintiff seeks to invoke this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law
claim, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction.

In determining whether to retain

supplemental jurisdiction, “[a] district court should consider the interests of judicial economy
and the avoidance of multiplicity of litigation and balance those interests against needlessly
deciding state law issues.” Landefeld v. Marion Gen. Hosp., Inc., 994 F.2d 1178, 1182 (6th
Cir. 1993). Ordinarily, where a district court has exercised jurisdiction over a state-law claim
solely by virtue of supplemental jurisdiction and the federal claims are dismissed prior to
trial, the court will dismiss the remaining state-law claims. Id. Here, the Court declines to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction with regard to Plaintiff’s state-law claims.
VI.

Conclusion
For the reasons stated, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs Precious R. Belser, Marvin

Belser, Jr., Latrina M. Belser, Genesis Underwood, and Elijah Underwood without prejudice.
Plaintiff Marvin Belser, Sr.’s claims against defendants Evans and Gibson Manning
fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Court
declines to exercise jurisdiction over his state-law claims. The Court, therefore, dismisses
the complaint. The dismissal of Plaintiff Marvin Belser, Sr.’s state-law claims is without
prejudice.
The Court denies Plaintiff’s Motions for Leave to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 7 &
8). The Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Submit Relevant Documents (ECF No. 9) and
Motion to Submit More Relevant Documents (ECF No. 10).
The Court further finds that if Plaintiff elects to appeal this decision, he may not
5

proceed without prepayment of the fees and costs on appeal because an appeal 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, 445 (1962).
SO ORDERED.
S/Victoria A. Roberts
VICTORIA A. ROBERTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: October 4, 2016

6