Baytops v. Slominski et al

Filing 8

ORDER (1) Dismissing in Part 1 Civil Rights Complaint and (2) Directing Plaintiff to Provide Service Copies. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

Case 4:20-cv-11630-MFL-APP ECF No. 8 filed 08/05/20

PageID.20

Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MILTON BAYTOPS, #637359,
Plaintiff,

Case No 20-cv-11630
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
STEVE SLOMINSKI, et al..,
Defendants.
____________________________________________________________________/
ORDER (1) DISMISSING IN PART CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT (ECF No.
1) AND (2) DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE SERVICE COPIES
I
This is a pro se civil rights case brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Michigan
prisoner Milton Baytops alleges that his constitutional rights were violated when he was
subjected to excessive force by police during a raid at a residence in Alpena, Michigan
in March 2019. (See Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.5, 7.) He also alleges that, at trial,
there was no DNA or fingerprints on the money or the drugs found during the raid. (See
id., PageID.8.) State records reveal that Baytops was convicted of two counts of
delivery/manufacture of less than 50 grams of narcotics/cocaine and one count of
conspiracy to do the same following a jury trial in the Alpena County Circuit Court.

1

Case 4:20-cv-11630-MFL-APP ECF No. 8 filed 08/05/20

PageID.21

Page 2 of 8

The state court then sentenced him to concurrent terms of 5 to 20 years imprisonment
on those convictions on July 30, 2019.1
Baytops

brings

his

Complaint

against

the

following

Defendants:

detectives/officers Steve Slominski, Lincoln Suszok, Scott Wood, the members of the
Huron Undercover Narcotics Team (“HUNT”) of Alpena County, alleged confidential
informant/citizen Wendy Mcleod, and citizens Chastity Wolff, Aaron Bisonnette, and
Kayla Woodham. (See id.) He has sued the Defendants in both their official and
personal capacities. (See id.) He seeks injunctive relief, monetary damages, and any
other appropriate relief. On August 5, 2020, the Court granted Baytops’ application to
proceed in forma pauperis in this action. (See Order, ECF No. 7.)
II
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, 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

1

See Baytops’ Offender Profile, Michigan Department of Corrections Offender
Tracking Information System:
http://mdocweb.state.mi.us/otis2profile.aspx?mdocNumber=637359.
2

Case 4:20-cv-11630-MFL-APP ECF No. 8 filed 08/05/20

PageID.22

Page 3 of 8

relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable
basis in law or in fact. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992); Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
A pro se civil rights complaint is to be construed liberally. See Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). Nonetheless, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)
requires that all complaints, including those filed by pro se litigants, 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. See 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).

3

Case 4:20-cv-11630-MFL-APP ECF No. 8 filed 08/05/20

PageID.23

Page 4 of 8

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) he or she
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. See Flagg Bros. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 155-57 (1978); Harris v.
Circleville, 583 F.3d 356, 364 (6th Cir. 2009).
As an initial matter, to the extent that Baytops challenges the validity of his
prosecution and his state criminal proceedings in this action, the Court will dismiss
those claims. A civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is not the appropriate vehicle
to challenge the validity of prisoner’s continued confinement. See Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) (holding that a state prisoner does not state a cognizable
civil rights claim challenging his imprisonment if a ruling on his claim would
necessarily render his continuing confinement invalid, unless and until the reason for
his continued confinement has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive
order, declared invalid by a state tribunal, or has been called into question by a federal
court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254). This holds true
regardless of the relief sought by the plaintiff. See id. at 487-89. Heck and other
Supreme Court cases, when “taken together, indicate that a state prisoner's § 1983 action
is barred (absent prior invalidation) – no matter the relief sought (damages or equitable
relief), no matter the target of the prisoner’s suit (state conduct leading to conviction or
internal prison proceedings) – if success in that action would necessarily demonstrate

4

Case 4:20-cv-11630-MFL-APP ECF No. 8 filed 08/05/20

PageID.24

Page 5 of 8

the invalidity of confinement or its duration.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82
(2005).
Here, if Baytops were to prevail on claims challenging the validity of his state
criminal proceedings, his continued confinement would be called into question.
Consequently, any claims in his Complaint concerning the validity of his state criminal
proceedings and his continued confinement are barred by Heck and must be dismissed.
In addition, the Court will dismiss Baytops’ claims against Defendants Wendy
Mcleod, Chastity Wolff, Aaron Bisonnette, and Kayla Woodham. These Defendants
are not state actors and thus they are not subject to suit under Section 1983. Indeed,
it is well-settled that a plaintiff must demonstrate that the conduct which caused his or
her alleged injury is “fairly attributable to the State” in order to state a civil rights claim
under § 1983. Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 937 (1982). Conduct which
deprives a party of a federally protected right can be said to be fairly attributable to the
state when: (1) the deprivation is caused by the exercise of a state-created right or
privilege, by a state-imposed rule of conduct, or by a person for whom the state is
responsible, and (2) the party charged with the deprivation may be fairly described as a
state actor. See id. Defendants Mcleod, Wolff, Bisonnett, and Woodham are private
citizens, not state actors.1 Thus, they are not subject to suit under Section 1983.

1

While Baytops alleges that defendant Mcleod is a confidential informant, such that
she could possibly be deemed a state actor, see, e.g., Hiser v. City of Bowling Green,
42 F.3d 382, 383 (6th Cir. 1994), he fails to allege facts showing that she was
personally involved in the use of excessive force, which is the only surviving claim.
5

Case 4:20-cv-11630-MFL-APP ECF No. 8 filed 08/05/20

PageID.25

Page 6 of 8

Construing the complaint liberally, however, the Court finds that Baytops does
allege sufficient facts to state a claim for relief against the remaining Defendants: Steve
Slominski, Lincoln Suszok, Scott Wood, and the members of HUNT who participated
in the raid, concerning the use of excessive force at the time of the raid. While Baytops
may or may not ultimately prevail on these claims, he has pleaded sufficient facts to
state a potential claim for relief. Service of the civil rights Complaint upon Defendants
Slominski, Suszok, Wood, and the participating members of HUNT (once they are
identified) is therefore appropriate.
III
For the reasons stated above, the Court concludes that Baytops fails to a claim
upon which relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as to claims challenging the
validity of his state criminal proceedings and his continued confinement. It further
concludes that Defendants Mcleod, Wolff, Bisonnett, and Woodham are not state actors
subject to suit in this action, and that Baytops fails to state a claim against defendant
Mcleod to the extent that she may be deemed a state actor. Accordingly, the Court

It is well-settled that a civil rights plaintiff must allege the personal involvement of
a defendant to state a claim under Section 1983. See Monell v. Department of Social
Svs., 436 U.S. 658, 691-92 (1978); Everson v. Leis, 556 F.3d 484, 495 (6th Cir.
2009); Taylor v. Michigan Dep't of Corr., 69 F.3d 76, 80-81 (6th Cir. 1995) (plaintiff
must allege facts showing that the defendant participated, condoned, encouraged, or
knowingly acquiesced in alleged misconduct to establish liability). Thus, any claims
against Mcleod must be dismissed.
6

Case 4:20-cv-11630-MFL-APP ECF No. 8 filed 08/05/20

PageID.26

Page 7 of 8

DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE those claims and those Defendants from this
action.
The Court further concludes that the excessive force claims against the remaining
Defendants (Slominski, Suszok, Wood, and the participating members of HUNT) are
not subject to summary dismissal. Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS Baytops to
provide the Court with 3 copies of the civil rights Complaint for service upon
defendants Slominski, Suszok, and Wood by no later than October 1, 2020 so that
service may be effectuated upon those Defendants. The Court shall provide Baytops
with one copy of the Complaint, which should be returned to the Court with the
additional copies. Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this
action.
Finally, 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.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: August 5, 2020

7

Case 4:20-cv-11630-MFL-APP ECF No. 8 filed 08/05/20

PageID.27

Page 8 of 8

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on August 5, 2020, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

8