Hilton v. Gleason
OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
EDWARD LEE HILTON, #85798,
CASE NO. 2:17-CV-10513
HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS
JOHN J. GLEASON,
OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
This is a pro se civil rights case brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Edward Lee
Hilton (“Plaintiff”), currently confined at the Genesee County Jail in Flint, Michigan, alleges
that John J. Gleason (“Defendant”), a Genesee County Court Clerk, refused to file paperwork
and motions from August, 2016 to January, 2017. Plaintiff alleges violations of his right to
compulsory process and his right of access to the courts. Plaintiff sues Defendant in his official
capacity and seeks injunctive relief. The Court has granted Plaintiff leave to proceed without
prepayment of the filing fees for this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
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 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. 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).
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. 8(a)(2)). While such notice pleading does not require detailed factual allegations, it
does require more than the bare assertion of legal 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).
To state a 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 pro se civil rights complaint is to be construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520-21 (1972).
Despite the liberal pleading standard accorded pro se plaintiffs, the Court finds that
Plaintiff’s Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (Prisoner Complaint) is subject to summary
dismissal. First, Plaintiff fails to state a compulsory process claim in his pleadings. The
Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment generally refers to a criminal defendant’s
right to have witnesses appear at trial. It requires a prosecutor to “exercise due diligence in a
good faith effort to secure the attendance of subpoenaed witnesses.” United States v. Baker, 553
F.2d 1013, 1022 (6th Cir. 1977). To establish a violation of the right to compulsory process, a
criminal defendant must make a plausible showing that the witness’s testimony is (or was)
material and favorable the defense. United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858, 867
(1982). Plaintiff alleges no such facts. Rather, he merely asserts that his right to compulsory
process was violated by Defendant’s alleged failure to file paperwork and motions in state court.
Conclusory allegations are insufficient to state a claim for relief under § 1983. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
678; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-57; Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 588 (1998); Moldowan
v. City of Warren, 578 F.3d 351, 390-91 (6th Cir. 2009); Lanier v. Bryant, 332 F.3d 999, 1007
(6th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff fails to state a compulsory process claim in his pleadings.
Second, Plaintiff fails to state a denial of access to the courts claim in his pleadings.
Prisoners, including indigent prisoners, have a constitutional right of access to the courts which
the states have a duty to protect. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821-25 (1977). A prisoner’s
right of access to the courts is limited to direct criminal appeals, habeas corpus applications, and
civil rights claims challenging the conditions of confinement. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 355
(1996); Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378, 391 (6th Cir. 1999). To state a §1983 claim for the
denial of access to the courts, a plaintiff must make some showing of prejudice or actual injury
as a result of the challenged conduct. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351; Harbin-Bey v. Rutter, 420 F.3d
571, 578 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing Jackson v. Gill, 92 F. App’x 171, 173 (6th Cir. 2004)).
Examples of actual prejudice include having a case dismissed, being unable to file a complaint,
and missing a court-imposed deadline. Harbin-Bey, 420 F.3d at 578. No actual injury occurs
without a showing that a non-frivolous claim has been lost or rejected, or that the presentation of
such a claim is being prevented. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 354-56; Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413,
416 (6th Cir. 1996). Additionally, a plaintiff must allege that the deprivation of rights was the
result of intentional conduct. Sims v. Landrum, 170 F. App’x 954, 957 (6th Cir. 2006); Wojnicz
v. Davis, 80 F. App’x 382, 384 (6th Cir. 2003). An allegation of negligence is insufficient to
state an access to the courts claim under § 1983. Collins v. City of Harker Hgts., 503 U.S. 115,
In this case, Plaintiff fails to provide any facts regarding the type of papers or motions
that he attempted to file with the state court. His pleadings are devoid of any factual details
regarding the nature of the case (or cases) that he attempted to institute, the type of motions that
he attempted to file, why any of his papers were rejected, the consequences of the rejections
(other than not being able to file), or specific dates when such actions occurred. Plaintiff fails to
allege or establish that a non-frivolous claim has been lost or rejected, or that the presentation of
such a claim is being impeded. He also fails to allege facts showing that Defendant’s conduct
was intentional in the constitutional sense. As discussed supra, conclusory allegations are
insufficient to state a claim for relief under § 1983. Plaintiff fails to state a denial of access to
the courts claim in his pleadings. This case must therefore be dismissed.
For the reasons stated, the Court concludes that Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted under § 1983 in his pleadings. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES
WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (Prisoner Complaint).
The Court further concludes that an appeal from this decision cannot be taken in good faith. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). This case is closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/VICTORIA A. ROBERTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: February 28, 2017
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?