McCoy v. Michigan Department of Corrections et al

Filing 9

OPINION and ORDER Partially Dismissing Civil Rights Complaint. Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (AChu)

Case 2:20-cv-11345-TGB-DRG ECF No. 9 filed 07/22/20

PageID.126

Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
2:20-CV-11345-TGB

ROBERT M-G MCCOY,
Plaintiff,

OPINION AND ORDER
PARTIALLY DISMISSING
CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT

vs.
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS et al.,
Defendants.

I. Introduction
Before the Court is Plaintiff Robert M-G McCoy’s pro se civil rights
complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a state prisoner
incarcerated at the Cooper Street Correctional Facility in Jackson,
Michigan. The Court has reviewed the complaint and now DISMISSES
IT IN PART as to certain defendants. The case will continue against
the remaining defendants.
II. Standard of Review
Plaintiff was allowed to proceed without prepayment of fees. See 28
§ U.S.C. 1915(a); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F. 3d 601, 604 (6th Cir.
1997). However, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) states:

1

Case 2:20-cv-11345-TGB-DRG ECF No. 9 filed 07/22/20

PageID.127

Page 2 of 9

Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that
may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any
time if the court determines that:
(B) the action or appeal:
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief.
A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). Sua sponte dismissal is appropriate
if the complaint lacks an arguable basis when filed. McGore, 114 F. 3d at
612.
While a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations,” the
“[f]actual 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).” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (footnote and citations omitted).
Stated differently, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, ‘to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at
570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550
U.S. at 556).
2

Case 2:20-cv-11345-TGB-DRG ECF No. 9 filed 07/22/20

PageID.128

Page 3 of 9

To prove a prima facie case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a civil rights
plaintiff must establish that: (1) the defendant acted under color of state
law; and (2) the offending conduct deprived the plaintiff of rights secured
by federal law. Bloch v. Ribar, 156 F. 3d 673, 677 (6th Cir. 1998) (citing
Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981)). “If a plaintiff fails to make
a showing on any essential element of a § 1983 claim, it must fail.”
Redding v. St. Eward, 241 F. 3d 530, 532 (6th Cir. 2001).
III. Complaint
Plaintiff’s complaint is fairly lengthy and repetitive. The Court will
attempt to summarize his allegations for purposes of this opinion and
order.
Plaintiff claims his cell was searched on April 28, 2018 by several
of the named defendants, who are corrections officers. These officers
claimed that they found contraband in plaintiff’s possession inside of his
coat. Plaintiff claims the defendants tore his coat while searching for the
alleged contraband. Plaintiff was placed in administrative segregation.
A misconduct ticket was issued against plaintiff. Plaintiff claims that
much of his personal property was lost or destroyed while he was in
segregation. Plaintiff discovered that much of his property was destroyed
after he was released from segregation.
Plaintiff claims that while his misconduct proceedings were
pending, defendant Lieutenant Smith contacted a detective from the
Michigan State Police and asked the detective to initiate criminal charges
3

Case 2:20-cv-11345-TGB-DRG ECF No. 9 filed 07/22/20

PageID.129

Page 4 of 9

against plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that the detective did no independent
investigation but based his decision to seek criminal charges on the
allegedly false reports written by the defendants.
Plaintiff was found not guilty of the misconduct on May 18, 2018.
Criminal charges, however, were filed against plaintiff by the Jackson
County Prosecutor based on the allegedly false reports written by the
defendant corrections officers.

Plaintiff alleges that two defendants,

Lieutenant Smith and Corrections Officer (C/O) R. Stidham committed
perjury at the preliminary examination.

Plaintiff claims that the

Jackson County Prosecutor ultimately dismissed the charge in the
interests of justice on May 24, 2019.
Plaintiff seeks monetary and injunctive relief.
IV. Discussion
A.

The complaint must be dismissed against the Michigan
Department of Corrections.
The complaint will be dismissed against the Michigan Department

of Corrections, because it is not a “person” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, and thus, the Eleventh Amendment bars any civil rights action
against the Michigan Department of Corrections. Harrison v. Michigan,
722 F.3d 768, 771 (6th Cir. 2013); Diaz v. Mich. Dep't of Corr., 703 F.3d
956, 962 (6th Cir. 2013); Rodgers v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, 29 F.
App’x. 259, 260 (6th Cir. 2002).

4

Case 2:20-cv-11345-TGB-DRG ECF No. 9 filed 07/22/20

B.

PageID.130

Page 5 of 9

The complaint must be dismissed against Defendants
Washington and Barrett.
The complaint must be dismissed against Defendant Washington,

the Director of the Michigan Department of Corrections, and Defendant
Barrett, the warden at the Cooper Street Facility, because plaintiff failed
to allege any personal involvement on the part of either defendant with
the alleged unconstitutional deprivations.
A supervisory official like Washington or Barnett cannot be held
liable under § 1983 for the misconduct of officials that the person
supervises unless the plaintiffs can demonstrate that “the supervisor
encouraged the specific instance of misconduct or in some other way
directly participated in it.” Combs v. Wilkinson, 315 F. 3d 548, 558 (6th
Cir. 2002) (quoting Bellamy v. Bradley, 729 F. 2d 416, 421 (6th Cir.
1984)). A plaintiff must show, at a minimum, that the supervisory official
“at least implicitly authorized, approved, or knowingly acquiesced in the
unconstitutional conduct of the offending officers.” Id.

“Supervisory

liability under § 1983 cannot be based on a mere failure to act but must
be based upon active unconstitutional behavior.” Combs, 315 F. 3d at 558
(citing to Bass v. Robinson, 167 F. 3d 1041, 1048 (6th Cir. 1999)).
The complaint must be dismissed against Defendant Washington,
because the complaint does not allege that Washington had any direct
involvement in the alleged violations of the plaintiff’s constitutional
5

Case 2:20-cv-11345-TGB-DRG ECF No. 9 filed 07/22/20

PageID.131

Page 6 of 9

rights. See Sarr v. Martin, 53 F. App’x. 760, 761 (6th Cir. 2002). Any
notice that Washington might have received through the prison’s
grievance system would be insufficient to make her personally liable for
the alleged unconstitutional acts here. Id.

Moreover, Washington’s

failure to take action upon plaintiff’s complaint would be insufficient to
render her liable for these unconstitutional actions under § 1983. Combs,
315 F. 3d at 558.
Warden Barrett is likewise not liable under § 1983 in his
supervisory capacity for the alleged violation of plaintiff’s rights because
plaintiff failed to allege that the warden committed any of these acts or
acquiesced in the other parties’ conduct. See Grinter v. Knight, 532 F.3d
567, 575 (6th Cir. 2008).
C.

The claim involving the destruction of plaintiff’s property is
non-cognizable.
Plaintiff’s claim involving the loss or destruction of property by the

defendants fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
An unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state
employee does not violate the procedural requirements of the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment so long as a meaningful
state post-deprivation remedy for the loss is available. Hudson v. Palmer,
468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984); Bass v. Robinson, 167 F. 3d 1041, 1049 (6th Cir.
1999). A plaintiff who brings a § 1983 procedural due process claim has
the burden of pleading and proving that the state remedies for redressing
6

Case 2:20-cv-11345-TGB-DRG ECF No. 9 filed 07/22/20

PageID.132

Page 7 of 9

the wrong are inadequate. Vicory v. Walton, 721 F. 2d 1062, 1066 (6th
Cir. 1983). If a plaintiff in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action fails to demonstrate
the inadequacy of his or her state remedies, the case should be dismissed.
See Bass, 167 F. 3d at 1050.
Plaintiff does not allege the inadequacy of remedies in Michigan for
him to obtain compensation for his loss, nor does he even indicate that he
has attempted to obtain relief from any court or tribunal in Michigan.
“State tort remedies generally satisfy the postdeprivation process
requirement of the Due Process Clauses.” Fox v. Van Oosterum, 176 F.
3d 342, 349 (6th Cir. 1999).

Because plaintiff does not allege the

inadequacy of the post-deprivation remedies in the State of Michigan, his
complaint is subject to dismissal.
Michigan has several post-deprivation remedies, including M.C.R.
3.105, which allows for an action for claim and delivery of the property,
M.C.L.A. 600.2920, which provides a civil action to recover possession of
or damages for goods and chattels unlawfully detained, and M.C.L.A.
600.6401, the Michigan Court of Claims Act, which establishes a
procedure to compensate for alleged unjustifiable acts of state officials.
See Copeland v. Machulis, 57 F. 3d 476, 480 (6th Cir. 1995).
Because

Michigan

provides

plaintiff

with

adequate

post-

deprivation remedies for the loss of his property, the alleged
unauthorized intentional deprivation of plaintiff’s property would not

7

Case 2:20-cv-11345-TGB-DRG ECF No. 9 filed 07/22/20

PageID.133

Page 8 of 9

rise to the level of a violation of due process. See Keenan v. Marker, 23 F.
App’x. 405, 407 (6th Cir. 2001).
D.

Plaintiff states a claim for relief against the remaining
defendants.
Plaintiff alleges that the remaining defendants initiated a false

criminal prosecution against him for possession of contraband. The tort
of malicious prosecution contains the following elements: “(1) a criminal
prosecution was initiated against the plaintiff and the defendant made,
influenced, or participated in the decision to prosecute; (2) there was no
probable cause for the criminal prosecution; (3) as a consequence of the
legal proceeding, the plaintiff suffered a deprivation of liberty apart from
the initial seizure; and (4) the criminal proceeding was resolved in the
plaintiff’s favor.” Johnson v. Moseley, 790 F.3d 649, 654 (6th Cir. 2015)
(quoting Robertson v. Lucas, 753 F.3d 606, 616 (6th Cir. 2014)).
“Where an officer falsifies the evidence that purports to provide
probable cause [for a criminal charge], that fact typically goes a long way
in justifying a malicious prosecution claim brought in a § 1983 action.”
Davis v. Gallagher, 951 F.3d 743, 749 (6th Cir. 2020). Plaintiff’s claim
that the remaining defendants falsified reports or other evidence in order
to initiate a criminal prosecution against plaintiff states a claim for relief.
Id. Although the Jackson County Prosecutor dismissed the charges, this
does not defeat plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim. “The fact that the
government recognized its error and moved to dismiss charges before a
8

Case 2:20-cv-11345-TGB-DRG ECF No. 9 filed 07/22/20

PageID.134

Page 9 of 9

trial could be conducted or completed should not bar a subsequent
malicious prosecution claim.” Jones v. Clark Cty., Kentucky, 959 F.3d 748,
764 (6th Cir. 2020).
The case will continue against the remaining defendants.
V. ORDER
Accordingly,

IT

IS

ORDERED

THAT

the

complaint

is

DISMISSED IN PART, WITH PREJUDICE, AS TO ANY CLAIMS
AGAINST

DEFENDANTS

CORRECTIONS,

HEIDI

MICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT

WASHINGTON,

AND

OF

JOSEPH

BARRETT, AND AS TO THE DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY
CLAIM, AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS, FOR FAILING TO STATE
A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED. The case will
continue against the remaining defendants.

SO ORDERED.
BY THE COURT:

/s/Terrence G. Berg
TERRENCE G. BERG
United States District Judge

9