Barnes v. Torres
Filing
9
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE, Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (WBar)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Naray A. Barnes,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 23-11309
Judith E. Levy
United States District Judge
Edwardo Torres,
Defendant.
Mag. Judge David R. Grand
________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE
Plaintiff Naray Barnes filed this pro se civil rights case against
Defendant Edwardo Torres.1 (ECF No. 1.) At the time this case was filed,
Plaintiff was a pre-trial detainee confined at the Wayne County Jail in
Detroit, Michigan. (Id. at PageID.1.) Plaintiff is presently a prisoner in
the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) at
Newberry Correctional Facility in Newberry, Michigan. For the reasons
set forth below, the case is dismissed with prejudice.
1
The Court apologizes for the delay in resolving Plaintiff’s case.
I.
Background
In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he was “illegally arrested for
a traffic stop” and that “the prosecutor and court are still trying to convict
[him],” even though the victim indicated he was not the suspect. (Id. at
PageID.3.) Plaintiff also states that, at the time his complaint, he had
been detained for more than two years without a trial. (Id.) He requests
that the case against him be dropped, that he be released on personal
bond, for all individuals involved in his case to be fired, and that he
receive damages for pain and suffering while in custody. (Id. at
PageID.3–4.)
Although Plaintiff does not identify the related state court case, the
relevant case appears to be People of the State of Michigan v. Naray
Antone Barnes, No. 21-002668-01-FC, in the Third Judicial Circuit of
Michigan. The public docket in that case indicates that Plaintiff was
arrested around March 17, 2021. Plaintiff was charged with assault with
intent to murder in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.83, assault with
intent to do great bodily harm less than murder in violation of Mich.
Comp. Laws § 750.84, and five firearms charges in violation of Mich.
Comp. Laws §§ 750.226, 227b, and 234b. On September 11, 2023,
2
Plaintiff pled guilty to assault with intent to murder and two of the
firearms charges. The remaining charges were dismissed. On September
25, 2023, Plaintiff was sentenced by the state court.
On or about May 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed the complaint in this
action.2 On June 23, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s application to
proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 7.)
II.
Legal Standard
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (“PLRA”), the Court
is required to sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint before
service on a defendant 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 relief may be granted, or
seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
Because the complaint is not dated, the Court uses the postmark date that
appears on the envelope. (ECF No. 1, PageID.6.) See also Brand v. Motley, 526 F.3d
921, 925 (6th Cir. 2008).
2
3
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable
basis in law or in fact. 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. Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972). Nonetheless, Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8(a) requires 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). 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) (citation omitted). While this notice pleading
standard does not require “detailed” factual allegations, it does require
more than the bare assertion of legal principles or conclusions. 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.
4
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
III. Analysis
Plaintiff’s complaint fails to allege a cognizable claim. To the extent
Plaintiff relies on federal criminal statutes (ECF No. 1, PageID.5), those
statutes do not provide a private right of action in civil suits. See Kafele
v. Frank & Wooldridge Co., 108 F. App’x 307, 308–09 (6th Cir. 2004). The
complaint also cites to numerous civil rights statutes, including 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1987. However, Plaintiff fails to
include any specific factual allegations that would support a claim under
these statutes. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
Additionally, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for his
allegedly unconstitutional arrest under § 1983 or § 1985, those claims are
barred unless his underlying conviction is reversed or vacated. See Heck
v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994) (“[I]n order to recover damages
for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other
harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or
sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or
sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive
order, declared invalid by a state tribunal . . . , or called into question by
5
a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.”);
Watson v. City of Marysville, 518 F. App’x 390, 392 (6th Cir. 2013)
(holding that a plaintiff “cannot pursue his unlawful arrest claim because
doing so would directly contradict his conviction” based on that arrest).
As such, Plaintiff fails to state any viable claim against Defendant, and
his case must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A; 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(c).
IV.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the case is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
Because an appeal of this opinion and order cannot be taken in good
faith, the Court denies Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis on
appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 24, 2024
Ann Arbor, Michigan
s/Judith E. Levy
JUDITH E. LEVY
United States District Judge
6
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 October 24, 2024.
s/William Barkholz
WILLIAM BARKHOLZ
Case Manager
7
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?