1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

Charles Kendrick, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 14-cv-14533 

v. Hon. Judith E. Levy 

 Mag. Judge David R. Grand 

William B. Daniel, 

Peter Jon Von Hoek, 

Kym Worthy, Michael Lehto, 

the Detroit Police Department, 

the State of Michigan, and 

the Internal Revenue Service, 

 Defendants. 

______________________________/ 

OPINION AND ORDER 

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR 

DISCOVERY AND DISCLOSURE [5 & 9], 

GRANTING HIS MOTION TO AMEND [8], 

AND DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT 

I. Introduction 

 This matter is pending before the Court on plaintiff Charles 

Kendrick’s pro se civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. 

Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 

388 (1971). Also pending before the Court are plaintiff’s motions for 

discovery, to amend the complaint, and for disclosure of information. 

5:14-cv-14533-JEL-DRG Doc # 11 Filed 03/06/15 Pg 1 of 12 Pg ID 83
2 

(Dkts. 5, 8, & 9). Plaintiff is a state prisoner at the Cooper Street 

Correctional Facility in Jackson, Michigan. The defendants are: 

William B. Daniel, plaintiff’s criminal defense attorney in state court; 

Peter Jon Von Hoek, plaintiff’s appellate attorney in state court; Kym 

Worthy, Prosecutor for Wayne County; Michael Lehto, an assistant 

Wayne County prosecutor; the Detroit Police Department and unnamed 

officers and investigators for the Department; the State of Michigan; 

and the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and its administrative staff. 

II. Background 

a. The Complaint 

 Plaintiff alleges that Detroit police officers arrested him on the 

basis of hearsay and then coerced him into making a confession, despite 

his requests for an attorney. Defendant William B. Daniel represented 

plaintiff at his preliminary examination. Plaintiff was bound over to 

state circuit court on a charge of murder and subsequently convicted, 

apparently after pleading guilty. 

 Plaintiff claims that Mr. Daniel coerced him to plead guilty even 

though he is innocent. He also claims that Mr. Daniel failed to (1) 

investigate his case, (2) file necessary motions, (3) provide plaintiff with 

5:14-cv-14533-JEL-DRG Doc # 11 Filed 03/06/15 Pg 2 of 12 Pg ID 84
3 

discovery materials, (4) subject the prosecution’s case to adversarial 

testing, (5) meet with plaintiff to discuss trial strategy, (6) exercise due 

diligence and devote reasonable time to plaintiff’s case. 

 Plaintiff asserts that Mr. Von Hoek, his appellate counsel, also 

failed to conduct an investigation or provide him with discovery and 

necessary materials. According to plaintiff, Mr. Von Hoek filed a 

defective appeal challenging only plaintiff’s sentence and refused to 

allow plaintiff to submit a supplemental brief. 

 Plaintiff seeks money damages, a writ of habeas corpus, and 

immediate release from custody. He also wants the Court to hold the 

Detroit Police Department and its officers accountable for his wrongful 

arrest and subsequent conviction. Plaintiff, furthermore, wants the 

courts, administrative agencies, and their staffs to be held responsible 

for frustrating his attempts to obtain relief. 

 Plaintiff’s complaint does not explain his claims against Worthy, 

Lehto, the State of Michigan, or the IRS. 

B. The Motions

 To the extent plaintiff’s motion for discovery seeks information to 

support his application to proceed without prepayment of fee and costs, 

5:14-cv-14533-JEL-DRG Doc # 11 Filed 03/06/15 Pg 3 of 12 Pg ID 85
4 

those issues are now moot given Magistrate Judge Whalen’s recent 

order granting plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

(Dkt. 10). The motion also seeks an order enjoining correctional 

officials from harassing and searching plaintiff, changing his housing 

assignment without the Court’s permission, restricting his visits, and 

interfering with his mail and access to a telephone. 

 In his motion to amend, plaintiff adds details to his original 

statement of facts and reiterates his claim that defendants Daniel and 

Von Hoek provided ineffective assistance of counsel. In particular, he 

notes that Daniel failed to investigate the criminal histories of two of 

the state’s witnesses and failed to challenge hearsay testimony. (Dkt. 8 

at 7). He also seeks to add information to show that Von Hoek was 

“unskilled and unlearned of the law... and not familiar with motions, 

practice, and pleadings.” (Id. at 2). Both of these failures, he alleges, 

contributed to the prejudice against him at trial and on appeal. (Id. at 

4). The motion also seeks reimbursement for the transportation 

expenses that plaintiff’s wife has incurred over the past twenty years as 

a result of visiting plaintiff in prison. (Id.) 

5:14-cv-14533-JEL-DRG Doc # 11 Filed 03/06/15 Pg 4 of 12 Pg ID 86
5 

Finally, in his “Ex Parte Motion for Disclosure... and for 

Discovery...,” plaintiff requests an order compelling the defendants to 

disclose any agreements with witnesses or concessions made to 

witnesses in his state criminal case. Plaintiff alleges that exculpatory 

information has been withheld from him and that the information will 

demonstrate he acted in self-defense and is innocent of murder. 

II. Legal Standard

 The Court must dismiss a prisoner’s complaint or any portion of 

the complaint if the Court determines that the action is frivolous or 

malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks 

money damages from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b); Smith v. Campbell, 250 F.3d 

1032, 1036 (6th Cir. 2001). A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an 

arguable basis in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 

(1989). And “[t]o state a 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.” 

Sigley v. Parma Heights, 437 F.3d 527, 533 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing West 

5:14-cv-14533-JEL-DRG Doc # 11 Filed 03/06/15 Pg 5 of 12 Pg ID 87
6 

v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988), and Searcy v. Dayton, 38 F.3d 282, 286 

(6th Cir. 1994)). 

While a complaint need not contain “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 Atlantic Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (footnote and citations omitted). 

“So, to survive scrutiny under §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), ‘a 

complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Hill v. Lappin, 630 

F.3d. 468, 471 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 

678 (2009)). “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 678. 

III. Analysis

A. Plaintiff’s Complaint is Frivolous and Fails to State a 

Claim 

 Plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous and fails to state a claim because 

it challenges his state conviction and seeks immediate release from 

5:14-cv-14533-JEL-DRG Doc # 11 Filed 03/06/15 Pg 6 of 12 Pg ID 88
7 

state custody. When, as here, “a state prisoner is challenging the very 

fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is 

a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier 

release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of 

habeas corpus.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Thus, 

plaintiff’s challenge to the state prosecution against him is “cognizable 

only in federal habeas corpus, with its attendant requirement of 

exhaustion of state remedies.” Id. at 499 n.14. Furthermore, 

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 authorized to 

make such determination, or called into question by a 

federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254. A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a 

conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not 

cognizable under § 1983. 

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) (footnote 

omitted)(emphasis in original). Heck and subsequent related cases, 

taken together, indicate that a state prisoner’s § 1983 action 

is barred (absent prior invalidation) -- no matter the relief 

sought (damages or equitable relief), no matter the target of 

the prisoner’s suit (state conduct leading to conviction or 

internal prison proceedings) -- “if success in that action 

5:14-cv-14533-JEL-DRG Doc # 11 Filed 03/06/15 Pg 7 of 12 Pg ID 89
8 

would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement 

or its duration.

Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005) (emphasis in original). 

 Success in this action would necessarily demonstrate the 

invalidity of plaintiff’s conviction and sentence. Therefore, he is barred 

from challenging his conviction and sentence in this civil rights action. 

B. Immunity and Color of Law

 All of the named defendants must also be dismissed from this 

action. 

Prosecutors performing “[f]unctions that serve as an ‘integral part 

of the judicial process’ or that are ‘intimately associated with the 

judicial process’ are absolutely immune from civil suits.” Koubriti v. 

Convertino, 593 F.3d 459, 467 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Imbler v. 

Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976)). Thus, Wayne County Prosecutor 

Kym Worthy and assistant prosecutor Michael Lehto enjoy absolute 

immunity for their role in prosecuting plaintiff. 

 As noted above, defendants Daniel and Von Hoek were plaintiff’s 

trial and appellate lawyers. Whether they were compensated by the 

State or retained by plaintiff, “[d]efense attorneys... do not act under 

color of state law when they perform a lawyer’s traditional functions as 

5:14-cv-14533-JEL-DRG Doc # 11 Filed 03/06/15 Pg 8 of 12 Pg ID 90
9 

counsel to the accused in a criminal proceeding.” Floyd v. County of 

Kent, 454 F. App’x, 493, 497 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Polk County v. 

Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981)). Consequently, plaintiff has failed to 

prove the second element of a civil rights action (acting under color of 

law) as to defendants Daniel and Von Hoek. 

 As for the remaining defendants, “[t]he City of Detroit Police 

Department is not a legal entity against which a suit can be directed,” 

Pierzynowski v. Police Dep’t City of Detroit, 941 F. Supp. 633, 637 n.4 

(E.D. Mich. 1996), and “[t]he IRS, as an agency of the United States, 

is... shielded from private actions unless sovereign immunity has been 

waived.” Beneficial Consumer Discount Co. v. Poltonowicz, 47 F.3d 91, 

94 (3d Cir. 1995). Plaintiff has not alleged any basis for concluding that 

the IRS waived its sovereign immunity in this case. He has also failed 

to sufficiently plead how the IRS allegedly violated his constitutional 

rights. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662. Therefore, the IRS and Detroit Police 

Department must be dismissed from this action. 

 Finally, states enjoy absolute immunity from suit under the 

Eleventh Amendment unless they consent to being sued. Alabama v. 

Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978) (per curiam). “The state of Michigan . . . 

5:14-cv-14533-JEL-DRG Doc # 11 Filed 03/06/15 Pg 9 of 12 Pg ID 91
10 

has not consented to being sued in civil rights actions in the federal 

courts,” Johnson v. Unknown Dellatifa, 357 F.3d 539, 545 (6th Cir. 

2004) (internal citation omitted), and “Congress did not intend to 

abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity by passing section 

1983.” Thiokol Corp. v. Dep’t of Treasury, State of Mich., Revenue Div., 

987 F.2d 376, 383 (6th Cir. 1993). The State of Michigan, therefore, is 

immune from suit. 

IV. Conclusion and Order

 For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff’s allegations lack an 

arguable basis in law and fail to state a plausible claim for which relief 

may be granted. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that: 

Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). 

 Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint is GRANTED to the 

extend the Court has considered the additional factual allegations set 

forth in the motion. 

 Plaintiff’s motion for discovery is DENIED because the Michigan 

Department of Corrections has provided the financial statement that 

plaintiff was seeking and the Court has granted his request to proceed 

5:14-cv-14533-JEL-DRG Doc # 11 Filed 03/06/15 Pg 10 of 12 Pg ID 92
11 

in forma pauperis. Furthermore, the Court cannot grant the other 

relief sought (an order compelling correctional officials to stop harassing 

plaintiff and interfering with his visits, mail, and access to the 

telephone) because plaintiff has not named any correctional officials as 

defendants. 

Plaintiff’s motion for disclosure of prosecution agreements made 

with witnesses and for discovery of documents related to plaintiff’s 

prosecution is DENIED. A district court is not required to allow “a 

fishing expedition masquerading as discovery.” Stanford v. Parker, 266 

F.3d 442, 460 (6th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff may pursue discovery in state 

post-conviction proceedings. See Kendrick v. Irwin, 77 F. App’x 770, 771 

(6th Cir. 2003). 

Finally, an appeal from this order 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). 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

Dated: March 6, 2015 s/Judith E. Levy___________ 

Ann Arbor, Michigan JUDITH E. LEVY 

 United States District Judge 

5:14-cv-14533-JEL-DRG Doc # 11 Filed 03/06/15 Pg 11 of 12 Pg ID 93
12 

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 March 6, 2015. 

 s/Felicia M. Moses__________ 

 FELICIA M. MOSES 

 Case Manager 

5:14-cv-14533-JEL-DRG Doc # 11 Filed 03/06/15 Pg 12 of 12 Pg ID 94