Malinowski v. Michigan Department of Corrections et al

Filing 6

ORDER of Summary Dismissal. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (JMcC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DON ERIC MALINOWSKI,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:16-cv-14492
Hon. Sean F. Cox

v.
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,
Defendant.
________________________________/

ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
Plaintiff Don Eric Malinowski (“Plaintiff”) has filed a pro se Complaint against “Michigan
Department of Corrections Corizon Staff Medical Department.” The Complaint states in full that
it is seeking an “award judgment for pain and suffering, cruel and unusual punishment medical
negligence failure to treat medical malpractice, additional permanent severe neurological damage
due to deliberate indifference failure to diagnose and treat said needed back surgeries.” Dkt. 1, at
3. Plaintiff was granted permission to proceed with this action in forma pauperis, without
prepayment of the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. After careful consideration, the Court dismisses
Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Complaints filed in forma pauperis are subject to the screening requirements of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2). Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863, 866 (6th Cir. 2000). Section 1915(e)(2) requires
district courts to screen and to dismiss sua sponte complaints that are “(i) frivolous or malicious; (ii)
fail[] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) seek monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Supreme Court has

1

defined a “frivolous” action as one that “lacks an arguable basis either 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). While this notice pleading standard does
not require “detailed” factual allegations, it 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). “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). “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).
In his Complaint, Plaintiff claims that unidentified personnel within the Michigan
Department of Corrections caused him physical harm in relation to medical care. Plaintiff’s
one-sentence claim, however, offers nothing more than labels and conclusions. “‘[N]aked
assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘factual enhancement’” fail to state a cause of action. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Plaintiff thus fails to state

2

a claim upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, Plaintiff's Complaint must be dismissed.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is hereby DISMISSED, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any appeal from this order would be frivolous and not
in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445, 82 S. Ct.
917, 8 L. Ed. 2d 21 (1962). Therefore, leave to appeal in forma pauperis will be DENIED.

Dated: February 16, 2017

s/Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
U. S. District Judge

I hereby certify that on February 16, 2017, the foregoing document was served on counsel of
record via electronic means and upon Don Malinowski via First Class mail at the address below:
Don Eric Malinowski 275416
MACOMB CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
34625 26 MILE ROAD
NEW HAVEN, MI 48048
s/J. McCoy
Case Manager

3