Burton v. United States of America
Filing
7
OPINION and ORDER Dismissing Complaint, Denying 6 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Concluding that an Appeal cannot be Taken in Good Faith. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (JMcC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ANTHONY BURTON,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 17-CV-11575
HONORABLE SEAN F. COX
v.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
______________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING THE CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT,
DENYING THE MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER,
AND CONCLUDING THAT AN APPEAL CANNOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH
I. Introduction
Midland County Jail inmate Anthony Burton (“Plaintiff”) has filed a pro se civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the United States Court of America, as well as a
motion for a temporary restraining order. Because Plaintiff names the federal government as the
sole defendant in this action, the Court construes his complaint as one brought pursuant to Bivens
v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). In his
complaint, Plaintiff asserts that the defendant failed to provide him with adequate mental health
services upon his release from federal prison. He seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief.
The Court has granted Plaintiff leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a). Having reviewed the complaint, the Court concludes that it must be dismissed. The
Court also concludes that an appeal cannot be taken in good faith.
II. Discussion
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996)
(“PLRA”), the Court is required to sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint before service
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). 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 relief from
a defendant who is immune from suit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. A complaint is frivolous if it 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).
To state a federal civil rights claim, a plaintiff must show that: (1) the defendant is a person
who acted under color of state or federal law, and (2) the defendant’s conduct deprived the plaintiff
of a federal right, privilege, or immunity. 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); Jones v. Duncan, 840 F.2d
359, 361 (6th Cir. 1988). Despite this liberal pleading standard, the Court finds that the complaint
is subject to summary dismissal.
Plaintiff’s complaint against the United States Government is subject to dismissal because
“[a]bsent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.”
Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994); see also United States v. White
Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465, 472 (2003). Indeed, it is “axiomatic that the United States
2
may not be sued without its consent and that the existence of consent is a prerequisite for
jurisdiction.” United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983). The plaintiff bears the burden
of identifying a waiver of sovereign immunity. Reetz v. United States, 224 F.3d 794, 795 (6th Cir.
2000). The United States has not waived its sovereign immunity for Bivens claims asserted against
the United States Government, its agencies, or its employees in their official capacities. Federal
Deposit Ins. Corp., 510 U.S. at 484-86; Berger v. Pierce, 933 F.2d 393, 397 (6th Cir. 1991).
Plaintiff fails to show that the United States Government has waived sovereign immunity for this
action. His complaint against the United States of America is thus subject to dismissal on the basis
of immunity.1
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated, the Court concludes that Plaintiff cannot proceed with this action
because the defendant United States of America is entitled to sovereign immunity. Accordingly, the
Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE his civil rights complaint. Given this determination, the
Court DENIES his motion for a temporary restraining order. Lastly, the Court concludes that an
appeal from this order 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.
Dated: June 12, 2017
s/Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
U. S. District Judge
1
Additionally, the Court notes that Plaintiff is no longer in custody of the United States
Bureau of Prisons, but is currently confined at the Midland County Jail. Consequently, the
United States Government is not responsible for his medical/mental health care and his request
for injunctive relief is moot.
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ANTHONY BURTON,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 17-CV-11575
HONORABLE SEAN F. COX
v.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
______________________________________/
PROOF OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 12, 2017, the foregoing document was served on counsel of
record via electronic means and upon Anthony Burton via First Class mail at the address below:
Anthony Burton
Midland County Jail
105 Fast Ice Drive
Midland, MI 48642
s/J. McCoy
Case Manager
4
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?