Hirth v. Royal Oak Police Department

Filing 8

ORDER Granting 2 Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Summarily Dismissing 1 Plaintiff's Complaint. Signed by District Judge F. Kay Behm. (KMac)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RYAN THOMAS HIRTH,

Case No. 23-12708

Plaintiff,

F. Kay Behm
United States District Judge

v.
ROYAL OAK POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendant.
____________________________/

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF No. 2) AND
SUMMARILY DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT (ECF No. 1)
Plaintiff Ryan Thomas Hirth, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against the
Royal Oak Police Department on October 25, 2023. (ECF No. 1).1 Plaintiff’s
complaint alleges he was subject to an unlawful arrest, in addition to other
unconstitutional conduct, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1, PageID.4).
Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis on October 25,
2023. (ECF No. 2). The court now finds the application supports his claims and
GRANTS Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. However, for the
reasons set forth below, the court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint without

1

This case was initially before District Judges Shalina D. Kumar and George Caram Steeh,
but was reassigned to the undersigned on November 28, 2023.
1

prejudice because the Royal Oak Police Department cannot be sued under 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
I.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
When an individual applies to proceed in forma pauperis, their claim is

subject to the screening standards established in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Brown v.
Bargery, 207 F.3d 863, 865-66 (6th Cir. 2000). Congress introduced this
subsection with an understanding that "a litigant whose filing fees and court costs
are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to
refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.” Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). Under this subsection, a court may dismiss a claim if it:
“(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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
II.

ANALYSIS
Plaintiff brings his claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which “imposes

liability on any ‘person’ who violates an individual’s federal constitutional or
statutory rights.” See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Brewer v. Genesee Cnty Sheriff Dep’t, No.
2:23-CV-10271, 2023 WL 3212337, at *2 (E.D. Mich. May 2, 2023). Plaintiff
alleges Defendant violated his rights in a number of ways, including: (1) unlawfully

2

arresting him; (2) seeking to enforce a no-contact order that had previously been
lifted by Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Shalina D. Kumar; “failing to properly
Follow Rules, Regulations, policies & Directions/protocol; and (5) “creating a
hostile environment disrupting me & Family’s lifes [sic].”
Plaintiff’s case names only the “Oakland Co. Royal Oak Police Department
P.D.” as a Defendant. While “municipalities and other local government units”
are included among the persons to which § 1983 applies, it has long been held
that local police departments are not. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. City of New
York, 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978); see also Laise v. City of Utica, 970 F. Supp. 605,
608 (E.D. Mich. 1997) (noting that a city police department is merely an agent of
the city, and therefore is not a proper defendant in a § 1983 lawsuit); Mayfield v.
Clare Co. Jail, No. 2:19-CV-13467, 2020 WL 59697, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 6, 2020);
Edwards v. Jail, No. 2:16-CV-11596, 2016 WL 2937146, at *2 (E.D. Mich. May 20,
2016).
Even if the court were to construe Plaintiff’s complaint as asserting a claim
against the City of Royal Oak or Oakland County more broadly, a municipality can
only be held liable under § 1983 if the municipality itself caused the constitutional
deprivation, not on the basis of respondeat superior. Monell, 436 U.S. at 694. To
state a claim against a municipality, a plaintiff must show a specific “policy,

3

statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision, officially adopted and promulgated
by that body’s officers.” Id. “A mere isolated unconstitutional act cannot
establish Monell liability absent proof of some policy or custom that can be
attributed to an official policymaker.” Fitzler v. Burton Police Department, No. 14CV-10786, 2014 WL 2711923, at *3 (E.D. Mich. June 16, 2014) (citing Oklahoma
City v. Tuttle, 47 U.S. 808, 823-24 (1985)). Plaintiff’s allegations do not name any
policy or custom could have been violated by officers of the police department.
Rather, Plaintiff claims the Police Department was “fail[ing] to follow, rules,
regulations, policies, procedures,” suggesting that, even if there had been a
municipal policy or custom, it may not have been followed. As such, because
Plaintiff cannot bring a § 1983 claim against the Royal Oak Police Department, and
fails to allege any policy or custom sufficient to state a claim against the
municipality, it must be dismissed.
III.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s case cannot proceed against

Defendant Royal Oak Police Department. Therefore, while Plaintiff’s application
to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED, Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED
without prejudice pursuant to 28. U.S.C. § 1915(e).
SO ORDERED.

4

Date: February 5, 2024

s/F. Kay Behm
F. Kay Behm
United States District Judge

5