UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRIAN GANT,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROMANOWSKI, ET AL., 

Defendants.

 /

Case Number: 2:15-CV-11321

HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Brian Gant’s pro se civil rights complaint filed

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding without prepayment of the filing fee in

this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Plaintiff’s claims relate to an amended

judgment of sentence entered in his criminal case. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief and

also to have the amended judgment of sentence vacated. For the reasons which follow,

the complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

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 Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson,

355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). While this notice pleading standard

does not require “detailed” factual allegations, Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, it does require

more than the bare assertion of legal conclusions or “an unadorned, the-

-1-

2:15-cv-11321-GCS-EAS Doc # 6 Filed 05/05/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 33
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. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).

Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee

for this action. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“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). Similarly, the Court

is required to dismiss a complaint seeking redress against government entities, officers,

and employees that 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable

basis in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). 

To state a federal civil rights claim, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) he was

deprived of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the federal Constitution or laws of

the United States, and (2) the deprivation was caused by a person acting under color of

state law. Flagg Bros. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 155-57 (1978). A pro se civil rights

complaint is to be construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). 

Plaintiff’s complaint challenges his present incarceration. He argues that his

amended judgment of sentence was entered under “erroneous circumstances” and

-2-

2:15-cv-11321-GCS-EAS Doc # 6 Filed 05/05/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 34
should be vacated. The complaint necessarily challenges the validity of Plaintiff’s

sentence. A claim under § 1983 is an appropriate remedy for a state prisoner

challenging a condition of his imprisonment. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475,

499 (1973). In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), the Supreme Court

established that a state prisoner does not state a cognizable civil rights claim

challenging his imprisonment if a ruling on his claim would necessarily render his

continuing confinement invalid, until and unless the reason for his continued

confinement has been reversed on direct appeal, called into question by a federal

court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, or otherwise

invalidated. See also Ruff v. Runyon, 258 F.3d 498, 502 (6th Cir. 2001) (Heck holding

applies equally to an action that would invalidate a federal conviction that has not been

declared invalid or otherwise impugned). Because Plaintiff has not achieved a favorable

termination of his criminal case, this complaint is barred by Heck.

Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 5, 2015

s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-

2:15-cv-11321-GCS-EAS Doc # 6 Filed 05/05/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 35
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

May 5, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also on

Brian Gant #233652, Detroit Re-Entry Center,

17600 Ryan Road, Detroit, MI 48212.

s/Barbara Radke

Deputy Clerk

-4-

2:15-cv-11321-GCS-EAS Doc # 6 Filed 05/05/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 36