Borkowski v. Michigan Reformatory
ORDER of Summary Dismissal. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case Number: 2:17-CV-10034
HON. DENISE PAGE HOOD
ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
This matter is pending before the Court on the pro se civil rights complaint
filed by Scott Borkowski. Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the Michigan
Department of Corrections, alleges his legal property has been confiscated and he
has been denied access to the law library. He names a single defendant, the
Michigan Reformatory in Ionia Michigan, where he was incarcerated prior to his
transfer to another facility. He seeks injunctive relief. For the reasons that follow,
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.
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.
Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing
fee for this action due to her indigence. 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). 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 (1) the deprivation
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, 98 S. Ct. 1729 (1978). A
pro se civil rights complaint is to be construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404
U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).
Plaintiff names a single defendant, the Michigan Reformatory. To state a
claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that the claimed federal violation was
committed by a person acting under color of state law. Flagg Bros., 436 U.S. at
155-57. A state prison facility is not a person or legal entity capable of being sued
under § 1983. See Poole v. Michigan Reformatory, No. 09-cv-13093, 2009 WL
2960412, *1 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 11, 2009) (holding that prison facilities are not
“persons” or legal entities subject to suit under § 1983); McGlone v. Warren
Correctional Institution, No. 1:13-cv-126, 2013 WL 1563265, *3 (S.D. Ohio Apr.
12, 2013) (same).
Moreover, Plaintiff fails to satisfy the minimal pleading requirements
because basic pleading requirements dictate that a plaintiff must attribute factual
allegations to particular defendants. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (holding that,
in order to state a claim, plaintiff must make sufficient allegations to give a
defendant fair notice of the claim); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). A complaint must allege
each defendant’s personal involvement with the alleged violation of federal rights.
See Frazier v. Michigan, 41 F. App’x 762, 764 (6th Cir. 2002) (dismissing claims
where complaint did not allege which of the named defendants were personally
involved in or responsible for each alleged violation of rights); Griffin v.
Montgomery, No. 00-3402, 200 WL 1800569, at *2 (6th Cir. Nov. 30, 2000)
(requiring allegations of personal involvement against each defendant). Plaintiff
fails to attribute any factual allegations against a particular defendant.
Accordingly, the complaint fails to satisfy the minimal pleading requirements.
For the reasons stated, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Accordingly, the
Court DISMISSES the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B). This
dismissal is without prejudice to the filing of a new complaint naming one or more
proper defendnats. The Court also concludes that an appeal from this order would
be frivolous and cannot be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3);
McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610-11 (6th Cir. 1997).
S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: April 21, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on April 21, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?