Gollnick v. More et al

Filing 16

OPINION AND ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 2 APPLICATION AND MOTION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING THE FILING FEE, (2) SUMMARILY DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S CHALLENGE TO THE FACT OR DURATION OF CONFINEMENT, AND (3) AFFORDING PLAINTIFF AN OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND HIS COMPLAINT ( Amended Complaint due by 12/19/2022). Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (AFla)

Case 2:21-cv-11123-LVP-CI ECF No. 16, PageID.75 Filed 11/17/22 Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
STEVEN JOHN GOLLNICK,
v.

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:21-cv-11123
Hon. Linda V. Parker

C/O MORE, C/O MASAS, MISS FIEGER,
C/O NICHOLAS WHITE, C/O SMITH, C/O WHITE,
C/O GREEN, C/O WILLIAMS, FNU STEVENSON,
FNU HERRIS, FNU RITERD,
GOVERNOR GRETCHEN E. WHITMER,
ALLISON ADAMS, JUDGE MICHAEL R. SMITH,
SARA LISZNYAI, NEAL R. BRADY,
TIM ANDWIPE PARCKS, P. WILLIAM O’GRADY,
KIRK AKASHIAN, BRENT R. WEIGLE,
DAVID T. COYLE, VICHALAS WHITE,
HEALTH SERVICES, and FOOD SERVICES,
Defendants.
__________________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION
AND MOTION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING THE FILING
FEE, (2) SUMMARILY DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S CHALLENGE TO
THE FACT OR DURATION OF CONFINEMENT, AND (3) AFFORDING
PLAINTIFF AN OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND HIS COMPLAINT
In 2021, Plaintiff Steven John Gollnick filed a pro se civil rights Complaint
and two applications to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. At the time,
Plaintiff was a state prisoner.1 As discussed below, Plaintiff appears to be indigent

On April 4, 2022, Plaintiff informed the Court that he was home from prison.
(See ECF No. 14.)
1

Case 2:21-cv-11123-LVP-CI ECF No. 16, PageID.76 Filed 11/17/22 Page 2 of 11

and, therefore, the Court is granting his applications to proceed without prepaying
the filing fee. However, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to comply with Rule 8 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and raises at least one non-cognizable issue.
Accordingly, the Court is dismissing the non-cognizable claim and ordering
Plaintiff to amend his complaint if he still wishes to pursue any cognizable claims.
I.

Background

In 2021, Plaintiff filed a Complaint (ECF No. 1) and an application to
proceed without prepaying the filing fee (ECF No. 2) while incarcerated at the
Michigan Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) Central Michigan Correctional
Facility in St. Louis, Michigan. Defendants are several individuals and two
entities, which appear to be part of MDOC. Some of the individual defendants
apparently are or were MDOC employees; other defendants are identified in the
Complaint as state-court judges; another defendant is Michigan Governor Gretchen
Whitmer; and the two entities are described as “Health Services” and “Food
Services.”
In his Complaint, Plaintiff raises several different, unrelated issues. First
and foremost, Plaintiff appears to claim that he was illegally sentenced in three
state cases. (See ECF No. 1 at Pg ID 5). Plaintiff alleges he was held longer than
he should have been and seeks money damages for every day past his “outdate.”
(Id. at Pg ID 9.)
2

Case 2:21-cv-11123-LVP-CI ECF No. 16, PageID.77 Filed 11/17/22 Page 3 of 11

The Complaint also refers to injuries Plaintiff allegedly sustained when
correctional officers transported him to an unidentified location in a van. He
asserts that one unnamed correctional officer was “high” on drugs at the time. (Id.
at Pg ID 7-9.) Elsewhere in the Complaint, Plaintiff seems to allege that his wife
and mother were killed while he was in jail. (Id. at Pg ID 9.) Plaintiff also alleges
that he has seen inmates making alcohol while correctional officers look away.
(Id. at Pg ID 16.)
In subsequent letters to the Court, Plaintiff makes some of the same
allegations, as well as new allegations. (See ECF Nos. 7-13.) For example:
● Comments about the bad food in prison and being kept in prison beyond
his outdate of February 15, 2021 (ECF No. 7);
● Allegations that some defendants, including correctional officers
White, Massa, Smith, Stevenson, Green, and “Herry” and Judges
Smith and White, are members of a motorcycle club, and that David
Allison stole Plaintiff’s property while he was in jail (ECF No. 8);
● A claim that Plaintiff was asked to drop a lawsuit about correctional
officers, and additional allegations about the bad food in prison, a rat
which sat on Plaintiff’s food, and the injuries that Plaintiff incurred
while being transported by an officer who was high on drugs (ECF
No. 9);
● Informing the Court that he was still in prison, was being held past
his outdate, and was having problems getting his mail (ECF No. 10);
● Allegations about his interview with a member of the parole board,
court fees that he was assessed, his sentence, the theft of his assets,
and school children getting HIV (ECF No. 11);

3

Case 2:21-cv-11123-LVP-CI ECF No. 16, PageID.78 Filed 11/17/22 Page 4 of 11

● A reference to his detention in Steuben County, Indiana for 92 days
at some unspecified time (ECF No. 12); and
● Allegations about Plaintiff’s high blood sugar, a misconduct report
that he received in prison, taxes and child support, and MDOC
opening his mail (ECF No. 13).
Finally, on April 4, 2022, Plaintiff notified the Court of his new address. He
states that he is now home from prison and on parole for ten more months. (ECF
Nos. 14 and 15.)
II.
A.

Discussion
The Filing Fee

Plaintiff filed an application to proceed without prepaying the fees for this
action when he filed his Complaint. (ECF No. 2.) Because he did not support his
application with a certified statement summarizing the activity in his prison
account, the Court ordered Plaintiff to correct the deficiency. (ECF No. 4.)
Plaintiff then filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 5.) Although
he claimed that he was attaching a certified statement regarding his trust fund
account (see id. at Pg ID. 24, 26, & 29), it was not attached. Since then, Plaintiff
has been released from prison (ECF No. 14), and he no longer has a prison trust
fund account from which the Court can collect the filing fee for this action.
Plaintiff still appears to be indigent, however.
Accordingly, the Court is granting him permission to proceed in forma
pauperis.
4

Case 2:21-cv-11123-LVP-CI ECF No. 16, PageID.79 Filed 11/17/22 Page 5 of 11

B.

Standard of Review

Having resolved the issue of the fees and costs for this action, the Court
proceeds to address Plaintiff’s claims. The Court must screen a complaint filed in
forma pauperis and summarily dismiss the complaint, or any portion of it, that is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted, or
seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Grinter v. Knight, 532 F.3d 567, 572 (6th Cir. 2008).
Although 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 Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007)
(footnote and citations omitted). In other words, “a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter . . . to ‘state a claim 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).
A complaint is legally frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact.
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The term “frivolous” “embraces

5

Case 2:21-cv-11123-LVP-CI ECF No. 16, PageID.80 Filed 11/17/22 Page 6 of 11

not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.”
Id.
Plaintiff brought his Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which “makes
‘liable’ ‘[e]very person’ who ‘under color of’ state law ‘subjects, or causes to be
subjected,’ another person ‘to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or
immunities secured by the Constitution[.]’” Pineda v. Hamilton Cnty., Ohio, 977
F.3d 483, 489 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting the statute) (brackets in original). A
plaintiff must prove two things to prevail in an action under § 1983: “(1) that he or
she was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United
States; and (2) that the deprivation was caused by a person acting under color of
law.” Robertson v. Lucas, 753 F.3d 606, 614 (6th Cir. 2014).
In addition, a pleading must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “[I]f a
complaint violates Rule 8, the appropriate remedy is rarely immediate dismissal.”
Id. at 652. Instead, the harsh sanction of dismissal is appropriate when “a district
court has offered multiple opportunities to fix the complaint and the plaintiff has
persisted in noncompliance[.]” Id. at 653.
C.

Application of the Law to Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff’s Complaint is written in such a manner that it is difficult to
understand exactly what Plaintiff is alleging.
6

Case 2:21-cv-11123-LVP-CI ECF No. 16, PageID.81 Filed 11/17/22 Page 7 of 11

However, it is clear in Plaintiff’s Complaint and letters that he alleges he
was illegally sentenced and held beyond his “outdate.” But these are challenges to
the fact or duration of confinement, which would be more appropriate in a habeas
corpus action, following exhaustion of state remedies. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411
U.S. 475, 499 n. 14, 500 (1973). A § 1983 action is not a proper remedy for a state
prisoner who is challenging the fact or length of his custody. Id. at 499.
Moreover, in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), the Supreme Court
held:
to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or
imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose
unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983
plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed
on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a
state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into
question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28
U.S.C. § 2254. A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a
conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not
cognizable under § 1983.
Id. at 486-87 (footnote omitted) (emphasis in original). Heck and subsequent
Supreme Court cases indicate that a prisoner’s civil rights action “is barred (absent
prior invalidation) . . . if success in that action would necessarily demonstrate the
invalidity of confinement or its duration.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82
(2005) (emphasis in original).
Plaintiff has not shown that his convictions or sentences were invalidated or
otherwise impugned, as set forth in Heck, and success on his claims about being
7

Case 2:21-cv-11123-LVP-CI ECF No. 16, PageID.82 Filed 11/17/22 Page 8 of 11

illegally sentenced or held in prison beyond his outdate would necessarily
demonstrate the invalidity of his prior confinement or its duration. Accordingly,
these allegations are not cognizable claims in this civil rights action. Heck, 512
U.S. at 487; Adams v. Morris, 90 F. App’x 856, 858 (6th Cir. 2004). The Court,
therefore, is summarily dismissing those claims.
Plaintiff’s remaining allegations are less clear. The Court must hold the
allegations of a pro se complaint “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers,” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, pro se
litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants. Hall
v. Witteman, 584 F.3d 859, 864 (10th Cir. 2009) (citing Garrett v Selby Connor
Maddux & Janier, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005)). They must link their
allegations to material facts and indicate what each defendant did to violate their
rights. Sampson v. Garrett, 917 F.3d 880, 882 (6th Cir.) (citations omitted), cert.
denied, 140 S. Ct. 528 (2019).
A complaint should clearly indicate “the defendants against whom relief is
sought and the basis upon which the relief is sought against the particular
defendants. To do less than this is to cause an injustice to persons who are named
as defendants in an action.” Mathews v. Kilroe, 170 F. Supp. 416, 417 (S.D.N.Y.
1959); see also Vicom v. Harbridge Merch. Servs., 20 F.3d 771, 778 (7th Cir.
1994) (citation and quotation marks omitted) (“In a case involving multiple
8

Case 2:21-cv-11123-LVP-CI ECF No. 16, PageID.83 Filed 11/17/22 Page 9 of 11

defendants,” Rule 8 requires only that the complaint . . . inform each defendant of
the nature of his alleged participation in the wrongful conduct.”). Courts are not
required to “supply additional factual allegations to round out a plaintiff’s
complaint or construct a legal theory on a plaintiff’s behalf.” Smith v. United
States, 561 F.3d 1090, 1096 (10th Cir. 2009) (quoting Whitney v. New Mexico, 113
F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997)).
Plaintiff’s Complaint is in part deficient in that it fails to set forth facts from
which to conclude that each named defendant was “acting under color of [state]
law.” As such, the Court is unable to determine whether all named defendants are
liable under § 1983. As for Defendants who do appear to be state actors, Plaintiff
does not allege what each governmental defendant did to violate his rights. The
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has “consistently held that damage claims against
governmental officials alleged to arise from violations of constitutional rights
cannot be founded upon conclusory, vague or general allegations, but must instead,
allege facts that show the existence of the asserted constitutional rights violation
recited in the complaint and what each defendant did to violate the asserted right.”
Terrance v. Northville Reg’l Psychiatric Hosp., 286 F.3d 834, 842 (6th Cir. 2002)
(emphasis in original).
Because Plaintiff’s allegations are vague and confusing, he fails to comply
with Rule 8 as to all the allegations other than his claims about being sentenced
9

Case 2:21-cv-11123-LVP-CI ECF No. 16, PageID.84 Filed 11/17/22 Page 10 of 11

illegally and being detained past his outdate. Nevertheless, if Plaintiff still wishes
to pursue his claims, the Court will allow him to file an amended complaint
identifying who the defendants are, what each defendant did to violate his rights,
when the alleged wrongs were committed, and where the acts were committed.
III.

Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff demonstrates that he is indigent. His Complaint, however, fails to
satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8. Further, his challenges to the fact or
duration of confinement fail to state a claim for which relief may be granted.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepaying
the fees and costs for this action (ECF No. 2) and his motion to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 5) are GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims about illegal
sentencing and being held beyond his outdate are summarily DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state
a claim. 2
“[T]he dismissal of a civil rights suit for damages based on prematurity under
Heck is for failure to state a claim.” Smith v. Veterans Admin., 636 F.3d 1306,
1312 (10th Cir. 2011); see also Garrett v. Murphy, 17 F.4th 419, 427 n. 4 (3d Cir.
2021) (noting “that Heck dismissals are for failure to state a claim”) (citing Ortiz v.
N.J. State Police, 747 F. App’x 73, 77, 79 (3d Cir. 2018)). And a dismissal under
Heck is without prejudice. Callihan v. Schneider, 178 F.3d 800, 804 (6th Cir.
1999); Cook v. City of Tyler, Texas, 974 F.3d 537, 539 (5th Cir. 2020).
2

10

Case 2:21-cv-11123-LVP-CI ECF No. 16, PageID.85 Filed 11/17/22 Page 11 of 11

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff wishes to pursue his
remaining claims, within thirty (30) days of this Opinion and Order, he must file
an amended complaint that contains a short and plain statement showing (1) who
the defendants are, (2) what each defendant did to violate his rights, (3) when the
alleged wrongs were committed, and (4) where the acts were committed. Failure
to comply with this order—including the filing of an amended complaint that fails
to satisfy Rule 8 and provide the information detailed above—will result in the
dismissal of this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: November 17, 2022

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, November 17, 2022, by electronic
and/or U.S. First Class mail.
s/Aaron Flanigan
Case Manager

11