Brown v. Supps et al

Filing 9

OPINION and ORDER Dismissing Civil Rights 1 Complaint and Concluding that an Appeal Cannot Be Taken in Good Faith. Signed by District Judge Gerald E. Rosen. (JOwe)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANTRELL V. BROWN, #367927,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 2:16-CV-13725
HONORABLE GERALD E. ROSEN

v.
D. SUPPES, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT AND
CONCLUDING THAT AN APPEAL CANNOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH
I.

INTRODUCTION
Michigan prisoner Antrell V. Brown (“Plaintiff”), currently confined at the Bellamy Creek

Correctional Facility in Ionia, Michigan, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 which consists of more than 800 pages of hand-written allegations, grievance forms,
state court documents, and other exhibits.1 His claims appear to involve the alleged denial of
adequate medical care for HIV/AIDS, religious, racial, and illness-related discrimination, the denial
of access to the courts due to prison library problems, the failure to investigate grievances, and
retaliation. Plaintiff names 28 defendants in this action. The defendants include 20 employees at
Bellamy Creek, the Governor of Michigan, the Director, Deputy Director, and Grievance
Coordinator for the Michigan Department of Corrections in Lansing, Michigan, the Michigan
Department of Corrections Health Care Provider CMS, a psychologist at the Charles Egeler

1

The Court notes that Plaintiff has not provided copies of his complaint and attached
documents for service upon the defendants.

Reception and Guidance Center in Jackson, Michigan, Detroit-based attorney Jonathan B.D. Simon,
and the Detroit Medical Center/Detroit Receiving Hospital. He sues the defendants in their personal
and official capacities and seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages. The Court has granted
Plaintiff leave to proceed without prepayment of the fees and costs for this action. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(1).
II.

DISCUSSION
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (“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. 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 is 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. 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) (citation omitted). This notice pleading standard does not
2

require “detailed” factual allegations, but does require more than the bare assertion of legal principles
or 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). “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.

Prejudicial Dismissal of Attorney Simon

Plaintiff names attorney Jonathan B.D. Simon as a defendant in this action. It is well-settled,
however, that appointed and retained attorneys performing traditional functions as defense counsel
do not act “under color of state law” and are not state actors subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Polk Co. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 318, 325 (1981); Elrod v. Michigan Supreme Ct., 104 F. App’x
506, 508 (6th Cir. 2004); see also Cicchini v. Blackwell, 127 F. App’x 187, 190 (6th Cir. 2005)
(“Lawyers are not, merely by virtue of being officers of the court, state actors for § 1983 purposes.”).
Because attorney Simon is not a state actor subject to suit under § 1983, Plaintiff’s complaint against
him must be dismissed.
B.

Non-Prejudicial Dismissal of Complaint Under Rule 8(a)

As noted, Plaintiff’s complaint consists of more than 800 pages of hand-written allegations,
grievance forms, state court documents, and other materials. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a),
3

however, requires that a complaint set forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A complaint violates Rule 8(a) and is
subject to dismissal when it “is so verbose that the Court cannot identify with clarity the claim(s) of
the pleader and adjudicate such claim(s) understandingly on the merits.” Harrell v. Directors of
Bureau of Narcotics & Dangerous Drugs, 70 F.R.D. 444, 446 (E.D. Tenn. 1975); see also Plymale
v. Freeman, 930 F.2d 919, 1991 WL 54882, *1 (6th Cir. Apr. 12, 1991) (district court did not abuse
its discretion in dismissing “rambling” 119-page complaint); Smith v. Smith, No. 06-11738, 2006
WL 3511565, *4-6 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 5, 2006) (adopting magistrate judge’s report and dismissing
prisoner civil rights complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8(a)(2)); accord Flayter v. Wisconsin
Dep’t of Corr., 16 F. App’x 507, 509 (7th Cir. 2001) (dismissing 116-page complaint pursuant to
Rule 8(a)(2)); Vicom, Inc. v. Harbridge Merchant Svs., Inc., 20 F.3d 771, 775-76 (7th Cir. 1994)
(criticizing district court for declining to dismiss amended complaint with prejudice pursuant to Rule
8(a) and noting that “[a] complaint that is prolix and/or confusing makes it difficult for the defendant
to file a responsive pleading and makes it difficult for the trial court to conduct orderly litigation);
Jennings v. Emry, 910 F.2d 1434, 1436 (7th Cir. 1990) (stating that a complaint “must be presented
with clarity sufficient to avoid requiring a district court or opposing party to forever sift through its
pages”); Michaelis v. Nebraska State Bar Ass’n, 717 F.2d 437, 438-39 (8th Cir. 1983) (per curiam)
(affirming dismissal of 98-page complaint where “[t]he style and prolixity of these pleadings would
have made an orderly trial impossible”).
Plaintiff’s complaint against the remaining 27 defendants, involving more than 800 pages
of hand-written allegations, grievances, state court documents, and other exhibits, fails to comply
with Rule 8(a). The complaint involves a myriad of claims, dates, and factual allegations against the
remaining defendants which are difficult to follow. Plaintiff has not submitted a clear and concise
4

statement of factual allegations of unconstitutional conduct against each of the defendants. Due to
the voluminous and rambling nature of the complaint, the Court cannot readily ascertain the factual
specifics for each of Plaintiff’s claims or the appropriate defendant/defendants for them. Even a
cursory review of the complaint and its attachments is daunting. Neither the Court nor the
defendants should be required to sift through 800 pages of materials to discern the who, what, and
where of Plaintiff’s claims and his bases for relief as to each of the defendants. Consequently,
Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed for failing to comply with Rule 8(a).2
III.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, the Court DISMISSES with prejudice the civil rights complaint as

to attorney Simon pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court also DISMISSES without
prejudice the remainder of the civil rights complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8(a). Lastly, the Court concludes that an appeal from this decision cannot be taken in
good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Gerald E. Rosen
United States District Judge
Dated: December 15, 2016
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel
of record on December 15, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Julie Owens
Case Manager, [phone]

2

The Court notes that some claims and/or defendants may also be mis-joined in this civil
rights action given the varying nature of Plaintiff’s claims (medical care, discrimination, access
to courts, retaliation) and the number of defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a), 20(a)(2), 21.
5