UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JERRY PATRICK,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF MICHIGAN and

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

Defendants.

 /

Case Number: 2:14-CV-13785

HON. VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL

I.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Jerry Patrick’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 claims that he is being excluded

from training for certain desirable prison jobs based upon his race. He names two

defendants, the State of Michigan and the Michigan Department of Corrections. Plaintiff

seeks monetary and injunctive relief. For the reasons which follow, the complaint is

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

II.

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

2:14-cv-13785-VAR-MKM Doc # 7 Filed 02/05/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 26
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, thedefendant-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). 

2

2:14-cv-13785-VAR-MKM Doc # 7 Filed 02/05/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 27
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). 

III.

Plaintiff names two defendants, the state of Michigan and the Michigan

Department of Corrections. The Eleventh Amendment bars civil rights actions against a

state and its agencies and departments unless the state has waived its immunity and

consented to suit or Congress has abrogated that immunity. See Will v. Michigan Dep’t of

State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989). The State of Michigan 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) (citing Abick v. Michigan, 803 F.2d 874, 877 (6th Cir. 1986)),

and Congress did not abrogate state sovereign immunity when it enacted 42 U.S.C. §

1983. Chaz Const., LLC v.Codell, 137 F. App’x 735, 743 (6th Cir. 2005). Eleventh

Amendment immunity “bars all suits, whether for injunctive, declaratory or monetary

relief” against a state and its agencies. Thiokol Corp. v. Dep’t of Treasury, 987 F.2d 376,

381 (6th Cir. 1993). Thus, Plaintiff may not maintain a § 1983 suit against the state of

Michigan or the Michigan Department of Corrections. 

IV.

3

2:14-cv-13785-VAR-MKM Doc # 7 Filed 02/05/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 28
The complaint is summarily dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and

1915A(b). 

SO ORDERED. 

S/Victoria A. Roberts

VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: 2/5/2015

4

2:14-cv-13785-VAR-MKM Doc # 7 Filed 02/05/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 29