Bridges v. Mental Health Officer
Filing
6
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE, Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (WBar)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Antonio Vallin Bridges,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 21-12366
Judith E. Levy
United States District Judge
Mental Health Officers,
Defendants.
Mag. Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford
________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE REQUESTS FOR CLASS
CERTIFICATION AND FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF AND DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Antonio Vallin Bridges, a state prisoner in the custody of
the Michigan Department of Corrections, recently filed a pro se civil
rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Defendants appear
to be the mental health officials at the Thumb Correctional Facility in
Lapeer, Michigan and all mental health officials employed at the Sex
Offender Office of the Michigan Department of Corrections (“MDOC”).
(Id.) The Defendants include Dr. Robert Murell and Morget Grainer and
unnamed mental health officials described as John Doe(s) and Jane
Doe(s). (Id.) Plaintiff purports to be bringing a class action lawsuit. (Id.
at PageID.1.) For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is denied.
I.
Background
Plaintiff alleges that MDOC mental health officials are requiring
Michigan prisoners who are not convicted of a sex offense to participate
in a sex-offender treatment program. (Id. at PageID.3.) According to
Plaintiff, these prisoners are labeled sex offenders without the
protections of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the United States Constitution. (Id.)
Plaintiff has asked the Court to certify this case as a class action so
that every Michigan prisoner who has not been convicted of a sex offense
but is required to complete a sex-offender treatment program, will not
have to file a lawsuit. (See id. at PageID.3–4.) Plaintiff also seeks
appointment of counsel to represent the class of prisoners, injunctive and
declaratory relief, and “some kind of preliminary injuncti[ve] relief.” (Id.
at PageID.4.)
II.
Legal Standards
The Court is required to screen new complaints and to dismiss any
complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for which
2
relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A. 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, quotation marks, and internal citations omitted). “To
survive a motion to dismiss 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 frivolous if it lacks “an arguable basis in law or in fact.”
Yousif v. Lynch, 796 F.3d 622, 630 (6th Cir. 2015) (quoting Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)). The term “frivolous” in § 1915,
“embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful
factual allegation.” Id. (footnote omitted).
3
III. Analysis
Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which “makes
‘liable’ ‘every 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 42 U.S.C. § 1983). 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).
Plaintiff’s complaint lacks an arguable basis in law because his only
claim is that state officials are forcing some unidentified Michigan
prisoners who were not convicted of a sex offense to participate in a
treatment program for sex offenders without due process of law. Plaintiff
has not alleged that he is one of the prisoners who is or was required to
participate in a sex-offender treatment program against his will, as
required to state a §1983 claim. Accordingly, Plaintiff lacks standing
4
because he fails to plausibly allege that he was injured by conduct
traceable to Defendants.
As Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue his own complaint, he cannot
proceed as a class representative on behalf of others. The Sixth Circuit
has also repeatedly held that pro se prisoner litigants, like Plaintiff, are
inadequate class representatives. See, e.g., Dunbar v. Prelesnik, No. 161374, 2016 WL 11618615, at *1 (6th Cir. Oct. 27, 2016); Heard v. Caruso,
351 F. App'x 1, 15 (6th Cir. 2009); Ziegler v. Michigan, 59 Fed. Appx. 622,
624 (6th Cir. 2003); Palasty v. Hawk, 15 Fed.Appx. 197, 200 (6th Cir.
2001); Marr v. Michigan, No. 95–1794, 1996 WL 205582, at *1 (6th Cir.
Apr.25, 1996).
IV.
Conclusion
The complaint lacks an arguable basis in law and fails to state a
plausible claim for relief. Accordingly, under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)
and 1915A, the Court orders that Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED,
his request for class certification is DENIED. It is further ordered that
Plaintiff’s requests for appointment of class counsel and for preliminary
injunctive relief are DENIED as moot, and that an appeal from this order
would be frivolous and therefore cannot be taken in good faith. See 28
5
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Diaz v. Van Norman, 351 F. Supp. 2d 679, 682 (E.D.
Mich. 2005) (citing Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 7, 2021
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 December 7, 2021.
s/William Barkholz
WILLIAM BARKHOLZ
Case Manager
6
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?