1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

BRADLEY T. PETERSON, 

 

 Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 14-12853 

 Honorable Mark A. Goldsmith 

 v. Magistrate Judge David R. Grand 

 

COUNTY OF MONROE, ROBERT 

CLARK, JOSEPH A. COSTELLO, JR., 

DALE MALONE, TROY GOODNOUGH, 

TIM LEE, and S. RANDALL FIELD, 

 

 Defendants. 

__________________________________/ 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS [10, 11] 

 Before the Court are Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Doc. #10, 11). An Order of 

Reference was entered on August 18, 2014, referring all pretrial matters to the undersigned 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b). (Doc. #6). Having reviewed the pleadings and other papers on 

file, the Court finds that the facts and legal issues are adequately presented in the parties’ briefs 

and on the record, and it declines to order a hearing at this time. 

I. RECOMMENDATION 

For the reasons set forth below, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Defendants’ motions to 

dismiss (Doc. #10, 11) be GRANTED, and that Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. #1) be DISMISSED. 

II. REPORT 

 A. Factual Background1

 

1 On its face, Plaintiff Bradley Peterson’s instant complaint is largely incomprehensible. For 

instance, in one paragraph, he alleges, “Plaintiff Bradley T. Peterson informed the federal court 

judges Mark A. Goldsmith and Judge David R. Grand: that the same named defendants of 

Macomb County 2010: torture, assaults, prejudice once again upon November 13, 2012: police 

4:14-cv-12853-MAG-DRG Doc # 20 Filed 11/19/14 Pg 1 of 10 Pg ID 219
2 

i. Peterson’s 2012 Action 

 On December 10, 2009, Plaintiff Bradley Peterson was arrested and charged with Assault 

with a Dangerous Weapon (Felonious Assault) and booked into the Monroe County Jail. See

Prior Action at Doc. #32 Ex. A. In short, in his March 30, 2012 complaint in the Prior Action, 

Peterson alleged that while he was held in the Monroe County Jail in 2010, jail personnel 

violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by kicking him in the head and placing 

him in a unit knowing that another inmate there would harm him. Id. at Doc. #1 at 9-11. Those 

claims were dismissed. Id. at Doc. #49, 56. 

In a May 20, 2013 filing in the Prior Action, which the Court interpreted as a request to 

amend his complaint, Peterson sought to add Circuit Judges Joseph A. Costello, Jr. and Michael 

W. LaBeau, Monroe County, and psychiatrist Mark Weliver as defendants. Id. at Doc. #27. In a 

vague series of accusations, Peterson asserted corruption on the part of Judge Costello, but failed 

to allege any particular harm caused by Judge LaBeau, Mark Weliver, or Monroe County. Id. 

The Court found that the judges were immune from Peterson’s suit, and that Peterson failed to 

make any specific allegations regarding Monroe County or Weliver. Id. at Doc. #49, 56. 

Peterson’s May 20, 2013 motion to amend also contained his first mention of a 

November 13, 2012 dispute with his brother-in-law, Michael Green, during which Green 

allegedly pointed a shotgun at Peterson, resulting in Green’s arrest. Id. at Doc. #27. Peterson 

alleged that during Green’s time in Monroe County Jail, jail personnel announced their disdain 

for Peterson on account of his 2012 suit, and treated Green preferentially as a reward for pointing 

 

incident reports has committed hatred, revenge, discrimination, prejudice issues against Plaintiff 

victim cause of filed civil lawsuit complaints: attorney S. Randall Field, for Defendants was also 

informed:” (Doc. #1 at ¶5). However, the undersigned was the assigned magistrate judge in 

related prior litigation Peterson had filed in the Eastern District of Michigan, and thus it is 

somewhat more able to discern the nature of Peterson’s allegations. See Peterson v. Monroe 

Cnty., No. 12-CV-11460 (the “Prior Action”). 

4:14-cv-12853-MAG-DRG Doc # 20 Filed 11/19/14 Pg 2 of 10 Pg ID 220
3 

the shotgun at Peterson. Id. Defendants Monroe County, Tim Lee, Julie Massengill, and 

Ramona Tally moved for summary judgment as to those particular claims. Id. at Doc. #32. In a 

report and recommendation to grant that motion, this Court found that it was unnecessary to 

examine Peterson’s allegations regarding Green’s alleged assault and preferential treatment, as 

they did “not bear on the issues in [the Prior Action] – the defendants’ actions and states of mind 

almost two years prior [during the two alleged instances of assault in 2010].” Id. at Doc. #49 at 8 

fn. 10. The Court therefore recommended dismissing Peterson’s claims related to Green’s 

alleged assault and preferential treatment without prejudice. Id. The Honorable Mark A. 

Goldsmith accepted this recommendation on March 28, 2014. Id. at Doc. #56. Peterson’s appeal 

of this decision to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals was dismissed. Id. at Doc. #67. 

 ii. Peterson’s Current Action 

Peterson filed his instant complaint on July 17, 2014, alleging violations of his civil rights 

by Defendants Monroe County, Robert Clark (who Peterson alleges is the “Mayor of Monroe 

County Municipal Corporations”), Joseph A. Costello, Jr. (an alleged Macomb County 

prosecutor), Dale Malone (a Macomb County Sheriff), Troy Goodnough (a Macomb County Jail 

administrator), Tim Lee (a Macomb County Jail guard), and S. Randall Field (the attorney who 

represented the defendants in Peterson’s Prior Action). As noted above, supra fn. 1, without this 

Court’s prior involvement in Peterson’s Prior Action, his instant complaint would be virtually 

incomprehensible. However, based on the Court’s familiarity with the Prior Action, it appears 

Peterson is alleging: (1) that the Defendants violated his 14th Amendment rights by failing to 

adequately investigate the incident in which Green allegedly pointed a shotgun at Peterson; and 

(2) that Defendant Lee violated his 14th Amendment rights by giving Green preferential 

treatment, e.g., high-fives, slaps on the back, handshakes, and extra food and blankets, while he 

4:14-cv-12853-MAG-DRG Doc # 20 Filed 11/19/14 Pg 3 of 10 Pg ID 221
4 

(Green) was in jail. 

On August 28, 2014, Defendants Monroe County, Costello, Malone, Goodnough, Lee, 

and Field filed the instant motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6). (Doc. #10). On August 29, 2014, Defendant Clark submitted his motion to dismiss in 

which he concurred in the motion submitted by the other Defendants. (Doc. #11). On 

September 22, 2014, Peterson filed a response which merely restated the same allegations as his 

complaint. (Doc. #14). 

C. Standard of Review 

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) tests a complaint’s legal 

sufficiency. “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, 

accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “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). The plausibility standard “does not impose a probability 

requirement at the pleading stage; it simply calls for enough fact to raise a reasonable 

expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of illegal [conduct].” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556. 

Put another way, the complaint’s allegations “must do more than create speculation or suspicion 

of a legally cognizable cause of action; they must show entitlement to relief.” League of United 

Latin Am. Citizens v. Bredesen, 500 F.3d 523, 527 (6th Cir. 2007) (emphasis in original) (citing 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-56). 

In deciding whether a plaintiff has set forth a “plausible” claim, the court must accept the 

factual allegations in the complaint as true. Id.; see also Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 

4:14-cv-12853-MAG-DRG Doc # 20 Filed 11/19/14 Pg 4 of 10 Pg ID 222
5 

(2007). That tenet, however, “is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the 

elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements [will not] suffice,” to 

prevent a complaint from being dismissed on grounds that it fails to comport sufficiently with 

basic pleading requirements. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; 

Howard v. City of Girard, Ohio, 346 F. App’x 49, 51 (6th Cir. 2009). Ultimately, “[d]etermining 

whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will . . . be a context-specific task that 

requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 679. 

Pleadings filed by pro se litigants are entitled to a more liberal reading than would be 

afforded to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Thomas v. Eby, 481 F.3d 434, 437 (6th Cir. 

2007). Nonetheless, “[t]he leniency granted to pro se [litigants] . . . is not boundless,” Martin v. 

Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 714 (6th Cir. 2004), and “such complaints still must plead sufficient facts 

to show a redressable legal wrong has been committed.” Baker v. Salvation Army, 2011 WL 

1233200, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 30, 2011). 

D. Analysis 

 Peterson’s legal basis for the current action is, at best, unclear. Peterson restates his 

cause of action in relation to each Defendant, with each restatement varying only slightly from 

the ones pertaining to the other Defendants. Peterson seems to argue that Defendant Lee, 

perhaps in conjunction with other Monroe County corrections officers, praised and rewarded 

Michael J. Green for allegedly “nearly killing” Peterson, and that the other Defendants failed to 

report or investigate Peterson’s complaints regarding that incident. (Doc. #1 at Brief in Support 

of Complaints, 1-4). Peterson alleges that these actions violated “U.S. laws and 14th 

Amendments [sic], [and] Native Indian Treaty rights,” and that it is “unprofessional and a crime 

4:14-cv-12853-MAG-DRG Doc # 20 Filed 11/19/14 Pg 5 of 10 Pg ID 223
6 

[to] deny the Plaintiff Equal Protections [sic] under U.S. laws and 14th Amendments [sic], [and] 

Native Indian Treaty Rights.” (Id. at Facts, 4). The Court is uncertain which “Native Indian 

Treaty rights” Peterson may be referring to, and it knows of no such rights which might be 

implicated by the conduct Peterson alleges in his complaint. To the extent Peterson alleges he 

was the victim of racial, ethnic, or disability discrimination, his claim would be properly 

addressed under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Consequently, the 

Court will treat Peterson’s claims as alleging that Defendants’ conduct violated his Fourteenth 

Amendment equal protection rights. 

i. Equal Protection Standards 

 The Fourteenth Amendment generally demands “that all persons similarly situated should 

be treated alike.” City of Cleburne, Texas v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439 

(1985). However, “neither the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, nor the 

counterpart equal protection requirement embodied in the Fifth Amendment, guarantees 

“absolute equality or precisely equal advantages.” U. S. v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 324 

(1976) (citation omitted); see also Glover v. Johnson, 198 F.3d 557, 563 (6th Cir. 1999) (“the 

Equal Protection Clause does not require identical treatment”). “To state an equal protection 

claim, a plaintiff must adequately plead that the government [treats certain people] disparately as 

compared to similarly situated persons and that such disparate treatment either burdens a 

fundamental right, targets a suspect class, or has no rational basis.” Raymond v. O’Connor, 526 

F. App’x 526, 530 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting Ctr. for Bio–Ethical Reform, Inc. v. Napolitano, 648 

F.3d 365, 379 (6th Cir. 2011)). 

Neither prisoners nor pretrial detainees constitute a suspect class. See Harbin-Bey v. 

Rutter, 420 F.3d 571, 576 (6th Cir. 2005) (noting that prisoners are not a suspect class); Bradley 

4:14-cv-12853-MAG-DRG Doc # 20 Filed 11/19/14 Pg 6 of 10 Pg ID 224
7 

v. Mason, 833 F. Supp. 2d 763, 774 (N.D. Ohio 2011) (noting that pretrial detainees are not a 

suspect class). The Equal Protection Clause is not violated merely because some, but not all, 

prisoners receive certain privileges or opportunities. See Glover, 198 F.3d at 563 (holding that 

unequal vocational training opportunities available to prisoners do not violate the Equal 

Protection Clause). 

ii. Peterson’s Complaint Fails to State an Equal Protection Claim 

a. Peterson’s Claim Related to the Treatment Michael Green 

Allegedly Received in Jail Should be Dismissed 

Peterson’s claim related to the treatment Michael Green allegedly received while in the 

Macomb County Jail should be dismissed. Peterson’s allegations are not sufficient to satisfy the 

general pleading standards set forth in Iqbal, which required him to “plead sufficient factual 

matter to show that [the Defendants acted] not for a neutral . . . reason but for the purpose of 

discriminating on account of race, religion, or national origin.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677. Yet 

Peterson does not, for instance, allege that any Defendant expressed disdain for Native 

Americans, disabled persons, or any other suspect classification of persons. Rather, Peterson 

makes only scant mention of discrimination, prejudice, “Native Indian Treaty rights,” “General 

George A. Custer’s 100-birthday celebrations,” his disabled status, and his “Native Indian” 

heritage. (Doc. #14 at 2). Peterson also only vaguely alleges that “Mayor Robert Clark . . . has 

knowingly discriminated against disabaled [sic] Native Indian victim out of loyalty for his 

colleagues in power.” (Doc. #1 at 9). 

These allegations are not sufficient to sustain an Equal Protection claim on the basis of 

discrimination against a suspect class. See Rondigo, L.L.C. v. Twp. of Richmond, 641 F.3d 673, 

682 (6th Cir. 2011) (holding that a complaint which made note of the plaintiff’s sex, but failed to 

allege that the defendants’ actions were motivated by a discriminatory purpose, was insufficient 

4:14-cv-12853-MAG-DRG Doc # 20 Filed 11/19/14 Pg 7 of 10 Pg ID 225
8 

to sustain a claim for gender-based discrimination targeting members of a suspect class); Farm 

Labor Org. Comm. v. Ohio State Highway Patrol, 95 F. Supp. 2d 723, 734 (N.D. Ohio 2000) 

aff’d and remanded, 308 F.3d 523 (6th Cir. 2002) (noting that discriminatory purpose must be 

proven by either direct or circumstantial evidence, such as statements made by defendants). At 

no point does Peterson actually allege in his complaint or subsequent filings that Defendant Lee 

(or any other Defendant) gave preferential treatment to Green on account of Peterson’s ethnicity, 

disability status, race, or any other personal characteristic. Peterson also fails to even mention 

the race, ethnicity, or disability status of Michael Green, thereby eliminating from contention the 

possibility that Green was given favorable treatment on those grounds. 

Moreover, Peterson cannot sustain an equal protection claim by comparing the treatment 

he received in jail to the treatment Green received at some later date. As noted above, in order to 

succeed on his equal protection claim, Peterson must allege that Lee (or others) treated “similarly 

situated persons” differently. Raymond, 526 F. App’x at 530. However, because prisoners and 

pretrial detainees do not constitute suspect classes, Harbin-Bey, 420 F.3d at 576; Bradley, 833 F. 

Supp. 2d at 774, it follows that neither do former inmates constitute such a class. Similarly, just 

as the Equal Protection Clause is not violated merely because some, but not all, current prisoners 

receive certain privileges or opportunities, Glover, 198 F.3d at 563, that protection is not violated 

when one inmate receives treatment different than those who were inmates before him. In sum, 

because Peterson and Green are not “similarly situated,” Peterson’s claim regarding the 

treatment Green received in jail should be dismissed. See United States v. Green, 654 F.3d 637, 

651 (6th Cir. 2011) (holding that a plaintiff who seeks to prove that they are similarly situated to 

another party must demonstrate similarity in all relevant respects). 

4:14-cv-12853-MAG-DRG Doc # 20 Filed 11/19/14 Pg 8 of 10 Pg ID 226
9 

 b. Peterson’s Claim that Defendants Failed to Investigate His 

 Complaint about Green’s Preferential Treatment should be 

 Dismissed 

 Peterson’s claim based on the Defendants’ alleged failure to investigate his complaint 

regarding Monroe county personnel granting Michael Green favorable conduct should also be 

dismissed. “A public official charged with the duty to investigate or prosecute a crime does not 

owe that duty to any one member of the public, and thus no one member of the public has a right 

to compel a public official to act.” Corhn v. Cnty. of Bay, 12-CV-13059, 2014 WL 4707510 at 

*4 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 11, 2014) report and recommendation adopted, 12-CV-13059, 2014 WL 

4715455 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 22, 2014) (quoting Fulson v. City of Columbus, 801 F. Supp. 1, 6) 

(S.D.Ohio 1992); see also White v. Tennessee, 14-CV-115, 2014 WL 3908203 at *7 (E.D. Tenn. 

Aug. 11, 2014) (“it is clearly established that a private citizen has no constitutional, statutory, or 

common law right to require a public official to investigate or prosecute a crime”) (quoting 

Woods v. Miamisburg City Schools, 254 F.Supp.2d 868, 873–74) (S.D. Ohio, 2003). 

It appears that Peterson’s only claim against Defendants Monroe County, Robert Clark, 

Joseph A. Costello, Dale Malone, Troy Goodnough, and Randall Field is that each was aware of 

Peterson’s complaints regarding the treatment Michael Green received while he was held in the 

Macomb County Jail, yet failed to investigate those complaints. See generally (Doc. #1). 

Because Peterson has no right to compel public officials to conduct investigations, he lacks 

standing to bring those claims, and they should be dismissed. 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Defendants’ Motions to 

Dismiss (Doc. #10, 11) be GRANTED. 

Dated: November 19, 2014 s/ David R. Grand 

 DAVID R. GRAND 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

4:14-cv-12853-MAG-DRG Doc # 20 Filed 11/19/14 Pg 9 of 10 Pg ID 227
10 

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS 

Within 14 days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation and 

Order, any party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and 

recommendations and the order set forth above. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(b)(2); E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(1). Failure to timely file objections constitutes a waiver of any 

further right of appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Sullivan, 431 

F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005). Only specific objections to this Report and Recommendation will 

be preserved for the Court’s appellate review; raising some objections but not others will not 

preserve all objections a party may have. See Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 

F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987); see also Frontier Ins. Co. v. Blaty, 454 F.3d 590, 596-97 (6th 

Cir. 2006). Copies of any objections must be served upon the Magistrate Judge. See E.D. Mich. 

LR 72.1(d)(2). 

A party may respond to another party’s objections within 14 days after being served with 

a copy. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). Any such response should be 

concise, and should address specifically, and in the same order raised, each issue presented in the 

objections. 

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 November 19, 2014. 

s/Eddrey O. Butts 

EDDREY O. BUTTS 

Case Manager 

4:14-cv-12853-MAG-DRG Doc # 20 Filed 11/19/14 Pg 10 of 10 Pg ID 228