Young v. Doe

Filing 5

OPINION and ORDER of dismissal. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CBet)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JESSE YOUNG,
Plaintiff,
Civil No: 2:16-CV-12927
HONORABLE NANCY G. EDMUNDS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

v.
JOHN DOE,

Defendant,
_________________________________________/
OPINION & ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
I. INTRODUCTION
Jesse Young, (“Plaintiff”), presently confined at the Gus Harrison Correctional
Facility in Adrian, Michigan, has filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
For the reasons stated below, the complaint is DISMISSED FOR FAILING TO STATE A
CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiff claims that on May 12, 2016, he mailed a package from the DRC (Detroit
Reentry Center) to an unspecified address. Plaintiff claims that when the package arrived
at this address, property that he placed inside of the package was missing. Plaintiff
appears to argue that a credit card may also be missing or stolen. Plaintiff blames the
defendant, the property manager at the DRC, for losing the property. Plaintiff seeks
monetary damages.

1

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), district courts are required
to screen all civil cases brought by prisoners. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F. 3d 601,
608 (6th Cir. 1997). If a complaint fails to pass muster under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2) or §
1915A, the “district court should sua sponte dismiss the complaint.” Id. at 612. Pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915(e)(2)(A), a district court must sua sponte dismiss
an in forma pauperis complaint before service on the defendant if satisfied that the action
is frivolous or malicious, that it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
that it seeks monetary relief from a defendant or defendants who are immune from such
relief. McLittle v. O’Brien, 974 F. Supp. 635, 636 (E.D. Mich. 1997).
IV. DISCUSSION
An unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state employee does not
constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment if a meaningful state post-deprivation remedy for the loss is
available. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533(1984); Bass v. Robinson, 167 F. 3d 1041,
1049 (6th Cir. 1999). A plaintiff who brings a § 1983 procedural due process claim has the
burden of pleading and proving that the state remedies for redressing the wrong are
inadequate. See Vicory v. Walton, 721 F. 2d 1062, 1066 (6th Cir. 1983). Where a plaintiff
in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action fails to demonstrate the inadequacy of his state remedies, the
case should be dismissed. See Bass, 167 F. 3d at 1050.
In the present case, plaintiff does not allege the inadequacy of remedies in Michigan
for him to obtain compensation for his loss, nor does he even indicate that he has
attempted to obtain relief from any court or tribunal in Michigan. “State tort remedies
2

generally satisfy the postdeprivation process requirement of the Due Process Clauses.” Fox
v. Van Oosterum, 176 F. 3d 342, 349 (6th Cir. 1999). Because plaintiff does not allege the
inadequacy of the post-deprivation remedies in the State of Michigan, his complaint is
subject to dismissal.
Plaintiff, in fact has adequate post-deprivation remedies available in the Michigan
courts. Michigan has several post-deprivation remedies, including M.C.R. 3.105, which
allows for an action for claim and delivery of the property, M.C.L.A. 600.2920, which
provides a civil action to recover possession of or damages for goods and chattels
unlawfully detained, and M.C.L.A. 600.6401, the Michigan Court of Claims Act, which
establishes a procedure to compensate for alleged unjustifiable acts of state officials. See
Copeland v. Machulis, 57 F. 3d 476, 480 (6th Cir. 1995).
Because Michigan provides plaintiff with adequate post-deprivation remedies for the
loss of his property, the alleged unauthorized intentional deprivation of plaintiff’s property
would not rise to the level of a violation of due process. See Keenan v. Marker, 23 F. App’x.
405, 407 (6th Cir. 2001). Because plaintiff has adequate post-deprivation remedies
available to him in the State of Michigan, he cannot maintain an action in federal court
against the defendant for the intentional loss or destruction of his property.
Finally, because plaintiff’s complaint against the defendant lacks any arguable basis
in the law, this Court certifies that any appeal by the plaintiff would be frivolous and not
undertaken in good faith. See Alexander v. Jackson, 440 F. Supp. 2d 682, 684 (E.D. Mich.
2006)(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)). Stated differently, it would be inconsistent for this Court
to determine that plaintiff’s complaint was too frivolous or meritless to be served upon the
defendant, yet has sufficient merit to support a determination that any appeal from the
3

Court’s order of dismissal would be undertaken in good faith so as to permit such an
appeal. See Anderson v. Sundquist, 1 F. Supp. 2d 828, 835 (W.D. Tenn. 1998)(citations
omitted).
V. CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is summarily DISMISSED FOR
FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(e)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A).
s/ Nancy G. Edmunds
HONORABLE NANCY G. EDMUNDS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED:August 18, 2016

4