UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES COLEMAN #183116,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No: 15-11536

Honorable Paul D. Borman

v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

 

COUNTY OF OAKLAND, et al., 

Defendants. 

__________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT [R. 1] 

SUA SPONTE AND DENY AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

CLASS CERTIFICATION [R. 1; R. 3].

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff James Coleman, a Michigan Department of Corrections

prisoner proceeding pro se, alleges that he was the victim of a systematic 

practice by the City of Southfield, Michigan, and the Southfield Police 

Department, of failing to support arrest warrants with facts that would allow 

a magistrate to make a finding of probable cause. [R. 1, PgID 1-4]. He 

requests injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Id., PgID 4, 8-10].

Coleman filed a motion for class certification [R. 3], which was 

referred to the Court for a report and recommendation. [R. 7]. However, 

because Coleman’s complaint fails to state a claim, the Court 

RECOMMENDS that it be DISMISSED SUA SPONTE, and the motion for 

class certification be DENIED AS MOOT. 

2:15-cv-11536-PDB-EAS Doc # 8 Filed 06/12/15 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 50
II. ANALYSIS

Under to Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a 

pleading must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing 

that the pleader is entitled to relief.” This standard requires the complaint to 

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 Atlantic 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.” Making legal conclusions or reciting the 

elements of a claim will not satisfy the plausibility standard. Id. Although a

court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true, it will not 

accept legal conclusions as true. Id.

The Court has an obligation under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 

1915A to dismiss complaints filed by prisoners sua sponte when they fail to 

state a claim or are frivolous. In re Prison Litig. Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131, 

1134 (6th Cir. 1997). 

Upon review of Coleman’s complaint, it is clear that he has not 

pleaded a plausible claim. Coleman’s complaint is full of legal conclusions 

disguised as factual allegations. The only factual allegation pleaded in his 

2

2:15-cv-11536-PDB-EAS Doc # 8 Filed 06/12/15 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 51
complaint is that Coleman “was arrested by Defendants [sic] law 

enforcement officers,” and that the complaint used to procure his arrest 

warrant was “without an affidavit providing facts or circumstances required, 

that support probable cause...” [R. 1, PgID 7]. This allegation, even if true, 

is insufficient for the Court to infer that there is a systematic practice of 

depriving citizens of rights, privileges, and immunities by procuring invalid 

arrest warrants by a class of defendants. Coleman’s factual allegations do 

not speak to a systematic practice of arrests, but to only one arrest – his 

own. Thus, Coleman does not state a plausible claim for relief.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Coleman’s complaint should be 

DISMISSED SUA SPONTE pursuant to Sections 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A,

and his motion for class certification should be DENIED AS MOOT.

s/Elizabeth A. Stafford

ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD

United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: June 12, 2015

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS

Either party to this action may object to and seek review of this 

Report and Recommendation, but must act within fourteen days of service 

of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 

3

2:15-cv-11536-PDB-EAS Doc # 8 Filed 06/12/15 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 52
72(b)(2). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any 

further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. 

Secretary of HHS, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 

638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). Filing objections which raise some issues but 

fail to raise others with specificity will not preserve all objections that party 

might have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Secretary of HHS, 931 F.2d 390, 401 

(6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 

1373 (6th Cir. 1987). A copy of any objection must be served upon this 

Magistrate Judge. E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2).

Each objection must be labeled as “Objection #1,” “Objection #2,” 

etc., and must specify precisely the provision of this Report and 

Recommendation to which it pertains. Not later than fourteen days after 

service of objections, the non-objecting party must file a response to 

the objections, specifically addressing each issue raised in the objections in 

the same order and labeled as “Response to Objection #1,” “Response to 

Objection #2,” etc. The response must be concise and proportionate in 

length and complexity to the objections, but there is otherwise no page 

limitation. If the Court determines that any objections are without merit, it 

may rule without awaiting the response.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

4

2:15-cv-11536-PDB-EAS Doc # 8 Filed 06/12/15 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 53
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 June 12, 2015.

s/Marlena Williams 

MARLENA WILLIAMS

Case Manager

5

2:15-cv-11536-PDB-EAS Doc # 8 Filed 06/12/15 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 54