Bradford #420788 v. Baraga Maximum Correctional Facility et al

Filing 4

OPINION; signed by Judge Gordon J. Quist (Judge Gordon J. Quist, jmt)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION

BRANDON DESHAWN BRADFORD,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:12-cv-323

v.

Honorable Gordon J. Quist

BARAGA MAXIMUM
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
OPINION
This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The Court has granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Under the Prison Litigation
Reform Act, PUB. L. NO . 104-134, 110 STAT . 1321 (1996), the Court is required to dismiss 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. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). The Court must read Plaintiff’s
pro se complaint indulgently, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and accept Plaintiff’s
allegations as true, unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504
U.S. 25, 33 (1992). Applying these standards, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for failure
to state a claim against Defendant Baraga Maximum Correctional Facility (AMF). The Court will
serve the complaint against Defendants Warden Curly, Deputy Warden Ken Trepley, Deputy
Warden Shane Place, Inspector Unknown Petaz, Assistant Resident Unit Supervisor Robert Warr,
Assistant Deputy Warden T. Dahl, Warden Napel, Deputy Warden Larson, and Inspector Contreras.

Discussion
I.

Factual allegations

Plaintiff Brandon DeShawn Bradford filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Baraga Maximum Correctional Facility (AMF), Warden Curly,
Deputy Warden Ken Trepley, Deputy Warden Shane Place, Inspector Unknown Petaz, Assistant
Resident Unit Supervisor Robert Warr, Assistant Deputy Warden T. Dahl, Warden Napel, Deputy
Warden Larson, and Inspector Contreras.
In Plaintiff’s complaint, he alleges that he was transferred from AMF to the
Marquette Branch Prison (MBP) on March 26, 2012, in an attempt to protect Plaintiff from a known
threat on his life. On Plaintiff’s arrival at MBP, he was placed in the general population, despite his
repeated requests to be placed in protective custody. Plaintiff states that Defendants Warden Curly,
Deputy Warden Ken Trepley, Deputy Warden Shane Place, Inspector Unknown Petaz, Assistant
Resident Unit Supervisor Robert Warr, Assistant Deputy Warden T. Dahl, Warden Napel, Deputy
Warden Larson, and Inspector Contreras were all involved in denying his requests for protective
custody. On March 31, 2012, Plaintiff was assaulted by two unknown inmates who were carrying
out a hit that had been placed on Plaintiff by a known gang / security threat group. As a result of
this assault, Plaintiff was seriously injured and was hospitalized.
Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment.
Plaintiff seeks damages and equitable relief.
II.

Failure to state a claim

A complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if “‘it fails to give the
defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atl. Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)).
-2-

While a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s allegations must include
more than labels and conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.”). The court must determine whether the complaint contains “enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” 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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
Although the plausibility standard is not equivalent to a “‘probability requirement,’ . . . it asks for
more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more
than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged – but it has not ‘show[n]’ – that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quoting FED . R. CIV . P. 8(a)(2)); see also
Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010) (holding that the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility
standard applies to dismissals of prisoner cases on initial review under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1)
and 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a
right secured by the federal Constitution or laws and must show that the deprivation was committed
by a person acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Street v. Corr.
Corp. of Am., 102 F.3d 810, 814 (6th Cir. 1996). Because § 1983 is a method for vindicating federal
rights, not a source of substantive rights itself, the first step in an action under § 1983 is to identify
the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994).
As noted above, Plaintiff names the Baraga Maximum Correctional Facility (AMF)
as a defendant in this case. An express requirement of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is that the defendant be a
-3-

“person.” See Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). AMF is an administrative unit
of the Michigan Department of Corrections. Neither a prison nor a state corrections department is
a “person” within the meaning of section 1983. Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S.
58 (1989). Furthermore, Plaintiff's claim against this Defendant is barred by the Eleventh
Amendment. Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978). That amendment prohibits suits in
federal court against the state or any of its agencies or departments. Pennhurst State School & Hosp.
v. Haldermann, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984). A state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity is in the nature
of a jurisdictional defense and may be raised on the court’s own motion. Estate of Ritter v.
University of Michigan, 851 F.2d 846, 851 (6th Cir. 1988). The Supreme Court has squarely held
that the Eleventh Amendment bars federal suits against state departments of corrections. Alabama
v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978) (per curiam). AMF is therefore not subject to a section 1983
action.
Conclusion
Having conducted the review required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Court
determines that Defendant Baraga Maximum Correctional Facility (AMF) will be dismissed for
failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c).
The Court will serve the complaint against Defendants Curly, Trepley, Place, Petaz, Warr, Dahl,
Napel, Larson, and Contreras.
An Order consistent with this Opinion will be entered.

Dated: March 22, 2013

/s/ Gordon J. Quist
GORDON J. QUIST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

--4--