Ward v. Mental Health, M.D.O.C. et al
OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL, Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Civil Action No. 5:16-cv-13129
HONORABLE JOHN CORBETT O’MEARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MENTAL HEALTH, M.D.O.C., et. Al.,
OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
The Court has before it Plaintiff Curtis Ward’s pro se civil rights complaint filed
pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§ 1983. Plaintiff is a state prisoner currently confined at the
Woodland Center Correctional Facility in Whitmore Lake, Michigan. Having reviewed
plaintiff's complaint, the Court dismisses it with prejudice for failing to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
In order 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. Absent either element, a section 1983 claim will not lie. Hakken v.
Washtenaw County, 901 F. Supp. 1245, 1249 (E.D. Mich. 1995). A pro se civil rights
complaint is to be construed liberally. Middleton v. McGinnis, 860 F. Supp. 391, 392
(E.D. Mich. 1994). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915(e)(2)(A), a district
court must sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint before service on the
defendant if satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious, that it fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, or that it seeks monetary relief from a defendant or
defendants who are immune from such relief. McLittle v. O’Brien, 974 F. Supp. 635, 636
(E.D. Mich. 1997).
Plaintiff has filed a completely blank complaint with the Court, which does not
contain any factual allegations involving the denial of a constitutional right by the
defendants nor requests any specific relief from this Court.
In the context of a civil rights claim, conclusory allegations of unconstitutional
conduct without specific factual allegations fail to state a claim under § 1983; some
factual basis for such claims must be set forth in the pleadings. Lillard v. Shelby County
Board of Education, 76 F. 3d 716, 726 (6th Cir. 1996); See also Johnson v. Freeburn, 29
F. Supp. 2d 764, 767 (E.D. Mich. 1998)(conclusory unsupported allegations of a
constitutional deprivation do not state a § 1983 claim).
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a complaint must contain a
“short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” This
rule seeks “to avoid technicalities and to require that the pleading discharge the function
of giving the opposing party fair notice of the nature and basis or grounds of the claim
and a general indication of the type of litigation involved.” Chase v. Northwest Airlines
Corp., 49 F. Supp. 2d 553, 563 (E.D. Mich.1999)(quoting Wright & Miller, Federal
Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 1215).
In the present case, plaintiff’s blank complaint certainly fails to satisfy the
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) and is thus subject to dismissal, because it
contains no factual or legal allegations which state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. See Payne v. Secretary of Treas., 73 Fed. Appx. 836, 837 (6th Cir. 2003)
(affirming sua sponte dismissal of complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2); “Neither
this court nor the district court is required to create Payne’s claim for her.”).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the complaint is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Based on the preceding order, this Court certifies that any
appeal by plaintiff would be frivolous and not in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3);
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962).
s/John Corbett O’Meara
United States District Judge
Date: September 21, 2016
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
of record on this date, September 21, 2016, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?