Fairchild v. Fairchild

Filing 13

OPINION and ORDER of Summary Dismissal. Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (SBur)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Elizabeth A. Fairchild,
Plaintiff,

Case Number 5:19-Cv-11849

V.
Larry Dean Fairchild,
Defendant.

Hon. Judith E. Levy
United States District Judge
Mag. J. Stephanie Dawkins Davis

_________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
Plaintiff Elizabeth Fairchild’s civil rights complaint under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 is before the Court for initial screening. Under 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915A and 1915(e) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1), the Court is required
to dismiss the case before service on defendants 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.
Having made such a finding, the Court will dismiss the complaint.
I.

Plaintiff’s Pleadings
On June 12, 2019, plaintiff simultaneously filed a Complaint (ECF

No. 1) and an Addendum (ECF No. 2). Approximately a month later,

plaintiff supplemented her pleadings with Documents (ECF No. 8) and
Exhibits (ECF No. 10). Fairchild’s caption includes only Larry D.
Fairchild as a named defendant. Her pleadings, sometimes difficult to
read and understand, name several other individuals and entities and
numerous potential claims. The Court will attempt to summarize those
persons and claims.
Persons against whom specific claims are alleged:
 Calhoun County Judge Tina Yost Johnson “has violated the
United States Takings Clause” (ECF No. 1, PageID.3.);
 The State Bar of Michigan took actions “in reference to Canada
Territories in violation of the International Treaty Geneva
Convention” (id. at PageID.4.) and with “the tribunal” may have
taken actions “related to homosexuality [and] police abuse (ECF
No. 2, PageID.10.);
 The Calhoun County Clerk “refus[ed] to file” (an unnamed
document or pleading), as directed by the Chief Judge of the
county (ECF No. 8, PageID.28.);
 Sheriff’s Deputy Everett committed a civil rights violation,
“‘chain injury’ transport negligence” (ECF No. 10, PageID.68.);
2

Persons named but against whom no allegations are made:
 Calhoun County Judge Jaconette (ECF No. 1, PageID.2.);
 Joan Yukins of the Michigan Department of Corrections (Id. at
PageID.3.);
 Larry D. Fairchild (Caption.);
Similarly, plaintiff states that she has “served” the following
entities or individuals, although she cites no claims against them: the
Sheriff, the Administration of the Courthouse, President Donald Trump,
United States Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, General John
Kelly, Governor Rick Snyder, and Gretchen Whitmer. (ECF No. 8,
PageID 27–28.)
Plaintiff also raises the following claims without naming an
individual responsible for the alleged constitutional violation:
 Forced false imprisonment (ECF No. 1, PageID.1; ECF No. 10,
PageID.100.);
 No vending card or money for stamps to which she is entitled
(ECF No. 2, PageID.12.);
 “False reports” in her record (ECF No. 8, PageID.27.);

3

 Health concerns regarding an overflowing toilet and weight loss
due to bugs in her food and other dietary problems (Id. at
PageID.38–40.);
 Life-threatening health conditions not being treated (Id. at
PageID.43.);
 Assault by “persons” and by nine police officers. (ECF No. 10,
PageID.68, PageID.76.)
II.

In forma pauperis status
Fairchild is currently confined at the Michigan Center for Forensic

Psychiatry, as the Calhoun County District Court found her incompetent
to stand trial. (ECF No. 10, PageID.83.) She did not prepay the filing fee
for this action nor did she seek approval to file in forma pauperis. On July
9, 2019, the Court issued an order of deficiency. (ECF No. 7.) On July 11,
2019, Fairchild applied for in forma pauperis status, using the District
Court’s standard form. (ECF No. 9.) On September 4, 2019, Fairchild
supplemented her application with statements of her Michigan Center
for Forensic Psychiatry accounts from May 2019 to August 2019. (ECF
No. 12.) The Court grants Fairchild’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis.
4

However, because Fairchild’s complaint and related pleadings fail
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court will dismiss
the lawsuit.
III. Screening and Pleading Standards
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (“PLRA”), the Court
is required to dismiss sua sponte any prisoner action brought under
federal law if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant immune from such relief. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c); 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b). The dismissal standard under the PLRA is
equivalent to that of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hill v.
Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470–71 (6th Cir. 2010) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)).
When evaluating a complaint under that standard, courts “construe the
complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept all wellpleaded factual allegations as true, and examine whether the complaint
contains ‘sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.’” Hill v. Snyder, 878 F.3d 193, 203 (6th
Cir. 2017) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).
5

To state a claim upon which relief may be granted, a complaint
must allege enough facts that, when assumed true, “raise a right to relief
above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. The Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure require that a complaint 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). “[D]etailed factual allegations” are not necessary, but under Rule 8(a)
the pleading must ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is
and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).
The Court must accept a plaintiff’s allegations as true unless they
“rise to the level of irrational or the wholly incredible.” Patterson v.
Goodward, 370 F. App’x 608, 609 (6th Cir. 2010) (citing Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992)). A pro se civil rights complaint is to
be construed liberally. Hix v. Tenn. Dep’t of Corrs., 196 F. App’x 350, 353
(6th Cir. 2006). However, this does not relieve a pro se plaintiff of the
duty to satisfy basic pleading essentials. Porter v. Genovese, 676 F. App’x
428, 440 (6th Cir. 2017) (citing Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th
Cir. 1989)). If a complaint proffers nothing more than “conclusory,
6

unsupported allegations” of wrongdoing by defendants, then dismissal is
appropriate. Pack v. Martin, 174 F. App’x 256, 258 (6th Cir. 2006). The
complaint “‘must contain either direct or inferential allegations
respecting all the material elements’ to recover under some viable legal
theory.” Barhite v. Caruso, 377 F. App’x 508, 510 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting
Mezibov v. Allen, 411 F.3d 712, 716 (6th Cir. 2005)).
To state a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, “a plaintiff must
set forth facts that, when construed favorably, establish (1) the
deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United
States (2) caused by a person acting under the color of state law.”
Dominguez v. Corr. Med. Servs., 555 F.3d 543, 549 (6th Cir. 2009)
(internal citation omitted). A private person may act under color of state
law “if they willfully participate in joint activity with state agents.”
Cramer v. Detroit, 267 F. App’x 425, 427 (6th Cir. 2008).
IV.

Analysis
Plaintiff’s pleadings mention numerous persons and several

possible deprivations of constitutional rights. However, despite a liberal
reading of plaintiff’s allegations, the pleadings do not state a plausible
claim to relief.
7

A. Larry Fairchild
Larry D. Fairchild is the only defendant named in the caption. Not
only does plaintiff fail to allege that Larry Fairchild caused any
constitutional injury, nothing in her complaint suggests he may be
considered a “state actor.” Plaintiff does not allege that Larry Fairchild
is a government official, acted under the authority of the state, or
conspired with the state. See Cramer, 267 F. App’x at 427. Any claims
against Larry Fairchild are dismissed.
B. Persons named against whom no allegations are made
In her complaint and related filings, plaintiff names but makes no
allegations against several individuals many of whom she asserts she has
served. “Although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, courts
are not required to conjure up unplead allegations or guess at the nature
of an argument.” Durrstein v. Arthur, 28 F. App’x 466, 467 (6th Cir. 2002).
The following individuals must be dismissed from the action because
plaintiff has provided no factual allegations against them: Calhoun
County Judge Jaconette, Joan Yukins, Calhoun County Sheriff, the
Administration of the Courthouse, President Donald Trump, Supreme

8

Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, General John Kelly, Governor Rick
Snyder, and Gretchen Whitmer.
C. Persons named who are immune from suit
Next, plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted for those persons who are immune from suit. “Judicial immunity
is an immunity from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of damages.”
Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991). Similarly, “[a] court clerk who
refuses to file a document with the court . . . is entitled to immunity,
provided the acts complained of are within the clerk’s jurisdiction.”
Harris v. Suter, 3 F. App’x 365, 366 (6th Cir. 2001) (internal citation
omitted). Thus, any claims against Judge Tina Yost Johnson or the
Calhoun County Clerk must be dismissed.
D. The State Bar of Michigan
Plaintiff’s claims against the State Bar of Michigan are
unsupported by any factual allegations. Plaintiff alleges the State Bar of
Michigan took actions in violation of the “International Treaty Geneva
Convention” (ECF No. 1, PageID.4.) and, with “the tribunal” (not
otherwise described), may have taken actions “related to homosexuality
[and] police abuse.” (ECF No. 2, PageID.10.) A court is not obligated to
9

accept as true allegations that clearly irrational or wholly incredible.
Denton, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). And to demonstrate entitlement to relief,
the complaint must contain allegations of all elements supporting
“recover[y] under some viable legal theory.” Barhite, 377 F. App’x at 510.
Plaintiff’s allegations do not meet the latter minimum standard and are
irrational. Any claims against the State Bar of Michigan will be
dismissed.
E. Sheriff’s Deputy Everett
Plaintiff states that Sheriff’s Deputy Everett committed a civil
rights violation she describes as “‘chain injury’ transport negligence.”
(ECF No. 10, PageID.68.) This claim fails to meet Twombly minimum
pleading standards. That is, a claimant’s factual allegations “must
provide not only ‘fair notice’ of the nature of the claim, but also ‘grounds’
on which the claim rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556 n. 3. (citing 5 Wright
& Miller § 1202, at 94, 95). Plaintiff fails to explain the circumstances or
details of the alleged “chain injury” sufficient to provide fair notice to
Sheriff’s Deputy Everett. This claim will be dismissed without prejudice.
Plaintiff may refile her complaint naming Sheriff Deputy Everett as the

10

defendant if she can explain what “‘chain injury’ transport negligence” is
and how she was harmed by it.
F. Plaintiff’s
constitutional
defendants

claims

without

named

Plaintiff’s constitutional claims without named defendants for the
most part fail. To establish entitlement to relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
a plaintiff must not only allege a constitutional violation but must
establish that it was “caused by a person acting under the color of state
law.” Dominguez, 555 F.3d at 549. Plaintiff’s claims regarding forced
false imprisonment, lack of a vending card or money for stamps, false
reports in her record, health concerns regarding an overflowing toilet,
weight loss due to bugs in her food and other dietary problems, and lifethreatening health conditions do not allege a causal connection to any
state actor. Where no defendant is named or even suggested, a plaintiff
cannot establish her entitlement to relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
However, plaintiff alleges that she was assaulted by nine police
officers. (ECF No. 10, PageID.68, PageID.76). While this allegation alone
is insufficient to state a claim in this action, as plaintiff only names Larry
Fairchild as a defendant, it does sufficiently identify a state actor—
namely, nine unknown police officers. Plaintiff’s claim of assault will be
11

dismissed without prejudice, and plaintiff may refile her claim against
the nine unknown police officers as defendants, if she has additional
factual allegations relating to the alleged assault.
V.

Conclusion and Order
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS

plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis.
Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE with
respect to Larry Fairchild, Calhoun County Judge Jaconette, Joan
Yukins, Calhoun County Sheriff, the administration of the Courthouse,
Donald Trump, Supreme Court Justice Kennedy, Gen. John Kelly, Rick
Snyder, Gretchen Whitmer, Judge Tina Yost Johnson, the Calhoun
County Clerk, and the State Bar of Michigan. Plaintiff’s complaint is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE with respect to claims regarding
forced false imprisonment, lack of vending card or money for stamps,
false reports in her record, health concerns regarding an overflowing
toilet, weight loss due to bugs in her food and other dietary problems, and
life-threatening health conditions.

12

Additionally, for the reasons stated above, plaintiff’s complaint is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE with respect to Sheriff’s Deputy
Everett and plaintiff’s claim of assault by nine police officers.
To the extent that plaintiff’s “Request for Hearing, Injunction”
(ECF No. 3) is intended to be received as a motion, this motion is
DENIED AS MOOT.
It is further ORDERED that an appeal from this decision would be
frivolous and could not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3);
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). For the same reason,
leave to appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 10, 2019
Ann Arbor, Michigan

s/Judith E. Levy
JUDITH E. LEVY
United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served
upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court=s
ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on September 10, 2019.
s/Shawna Burns
SHAWNA BURNS
Case Manager
13