Thomas v. State of Michigan

Filing 4

ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING CASE Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MICHAEL RAY THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

Civil No. 2:17-cv-13756
Hon. Victoria A. Roberts

v.
STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Defendants.
________________________________/

ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
Plaintiff Michael Ray Thomas, a state inmate incarcerated at the Saginaw
Correctional Facility in Freeland, Michigan, has filed a pro se civil complaint. The Court
granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, and he is proceeding without
prepayment of the filing fee in this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). After careful
consideration, the court summarily dismisses the complaint.
I. BACKGROUND
According to the Michigan Department of Corrections website, Plaintiff is
incarcerated as a result of several convictions and sentences imposed by the Macomb
County Circuit Court, the most serious of which is his 2015 conviction for using a computer
to commit possession of child sexually abusive material, contrary to MICH. COMP. LAWS §
750.145d.1

1

Pursuant to FED. R. EVID. 201(c), the Court may take judicial notice of the
information provided on the Michigan Department of Corrections website. See Daly v.
Burt, 613 F. Supp. 2d 916, 920 n.2 (E.D. Mich. 2009); Ward v. Wolfenbarger, 323 F.
Supp. 2d 818, 821 n. 3 (E.D. Mich. 2004).
1

The complaint names “The People of the State of Michigan” as defendant. The
complaint alleges that the statute for which Petitioner was convicted violates an accused’s
First Amendment free speech rights. Plaintiff seeks a judgment declaring the statute
unconstitutional. He also asks that the ruling be made retroactive “to allow reversal of any
Michigan conviction brought under 750.145d.” Dkt. 1, at 10.
II. STANDARD
A civil complaint filed by a pro se prisoner is 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 complaints that are frivolous,
fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); McGore v.
Wigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997). A complaint is frivolous and subject to
sua sponte dismissal under § 1915(e) if it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact.
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, when, construing the complaint in a light most favorable to the
plaintiff and accepting all the factual allegations as true, the plaintiff undoubtedly can prove
no set of facts in support of his claims that would entitle him to relief. Sistrunk v. City of
Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996); Cline v. Rogers, 87 F.3d 176, 179 (6th Cir.
1996); Wright v. MetroHealth Med. Ctr., 58 F.3d 1130, 1138 (6th Cir. 1995).
III. DISCUSSION
This civil action seeks to invalidate a Michigan penal statute on the grounds that it
is unconstitutional, paving the way for reversal of his state conviction. In Heck v. Humphrey,

2

512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), the Supreme Court held such claims to be improper:
[W]hen a state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court
must consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily
imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint
must be dismissed unless plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or
sentence has already been invalidated.
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus provides the appropriate vehicle for challenging
the fact or duration of a prisoner’s confinement in federal court. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411
U.S. 475, 486-87 (1973).
Nevertheless, the Court cannot convert this matter into a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus. When a suit that should have been brought under the habeas corpus statute is
prosecuted instead as a civil suit, it should not be “converted” into a habeas corpus suit and
decided on the merits. Pischke v. Litscher, 178 F. 3d 497, 500 (7th Cir. 1999). Instead, the
matter should be dismissed, leaving it to the prisoner to decide whether to re-file it as a
petition for writ of habeas corpus. Id. Moreover, Heck clearly directs a federal district court
to dismiss a civil rights complaint which raises claims that attack the validity of a conviction;
it does not direct a court to construe the civil rights complaint as a habeas petition. See
Murphy v. Martin, 343 F. Supp. 2d 603, 610 (E.D. Mich. 2004).
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(1).
The Court further find that an appeal from this order would be frivolous and could
not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S.
438, 443-45 (1962). Leave to file an appeal in forma pauperis is therefore also DENIED.

3

SO ORDERED.
S/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Court
Dated: December 19, 2017

4