UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LAMOUNT MALCOLM SAPP,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 2:15-CV-12378

v. HONORABLE SEAN F. COX

DEPUTY SHERIFF EDINGTON, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL

I. INTRODUCTION

Lamount Malcolm Sapp (“Plaintiff”), currently confined at the Midland County Jail, has

filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting that his constitutional

rights were violated when he was confined at the Sanilac County Jail in April, 2015. He alleges that

Sanilac County Deputy Sheriff Edington told other jail inmates that he was a cooperating

witness/federal informant thereby risking his safety. He further alleges that the Sanilac County

Sheriff is also responsible for such conduct. He sues Deputy Sheriff Edington in his personal and

official capacity and sues the Sanilac County Sheriff in his official capacity. He seeks monetary

damages. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed without prepayment of the fees and costs for

this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

II. DISCUSSION

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (“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

2:15-cv-12378-SFC-MJH Doc # 5 Filed 07/31/15 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 17
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). The Court is similarly required to dismiss a complaint seeking redress

against government entities, officers, and employees which 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. A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable

basis in law or in fact. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.

319, 325 (1989).

A pro se civil rights complaint is to be construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,

520-21 (1972). Nonetheless, 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 Atlantic Corp.

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citation omitted). While this notice pleading standard does

not require “detailed” factual allegations, it does require more than the bare assertion of legal

principles or conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Rule 8 “demands more than an unadorned,

the 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).

To state a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 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

2

2:15-cv-12378-SFC-MJH Doc # 5 Filed 07/31/15 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 18
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); Harris v. Circleville, 583 F.3d 356, 364 (6th Cir. 2009).

A. Claims Against Deputy Sheriff Edington

Plaintiff alleges that Deputy Sheriff Edington violated his constitutional rights by telling

other jail inmates that he was a cooperating witness/informant thereby placing his safety at risk. 

Allegations of verbal harassment and threats are insufficient to state a civil rights claim under

§ 1983. Ivey v. Wilson, 832 F.2d 950, 954-55 (6th Cir. 1987). Even verbal threats by a corrections

officer to assault an inmate do not violate an inmate’s constitutional rights. Miller v. Wertanen, 109

F. App’x 64, 65 (6th Cir. 2004); see also Carney v. Craven, 40 F. App’x 48, 50 (6th Cir. 2002)

(ruling that verbal threats and abuse made in retaliation for filing grievances are not actionable). 

Plaintiff’s allegations of verbal harassment or threats thus fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted under § 1983.

Under the Eighth Amendment, however, prison or jail officials “have an affirmative duty to

protect inmates from violence perpetrated by other prisoners.” Wilson v. Yaklich, 148 F.3d 596, 600

(6th Cir. 1998). To state an Eighth Amendment claim, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that the

defendant’s conduct amounted to “deliberate indifference” to a known risk of harm to the plaintiff.

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 828 (1994). Identifying an inmate as an informant or labeling

him or her as a “snitch” may constitute deliberate indifference to the safety of the inmate. See, e.g.,

Comstock v. McCrary, 273 F.3d 693, 699, n. 2 (6th Cir. 2001) (acknowledging that being labeled

a snitch could make the inmate a target for prison attacks); see also Benefield v. McDowall, 241 F.3d

1267, 1271 (10th Cir. 2001).

3

2:15-cv-12378-SFC-MJH Doc # 5 Filed 07/31/15 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 19
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has ruled that to state a claim for

deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment in such a context, a plaintiff must allege, and

ultimately establish, that he or she suffered physical harm as a result of being labeled a snitch. See

Thompson v. Mich. Dep't of Corrections, 25 F. App’x 357, 359 (6th Cir. 2002) (affirming district

court’s dismissal where plaintiff’s claim that he was endangered by being labeled a snitch was

unsupported by any allegation of harm); Yaklich, 148 F.3d at 600-01 (plaintiff failed to state an

Eighth Amendment claim based upon inmate threats where he alleged no physical injury); White v.

Trayser, No. 10-CV-11397, 2011 WL 1135552, *5 (E.D. Mich. March 25, 2011) (plaintiff failed

to state an Eighth Amendment claim where he alleged that defendant endangered his life by thanking

him for information about illegal contraband in the presence of other inmates but failed to allege that

he suffered any physical injury); Catanzaro v. Mich. Dep't of Corrections, No. 08–11173, 2009 WL

4250027, *11 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 19, 2009) (“an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim

must be grounded in an actual physical injury”); Gibbs v. Ball, 2009 WL 331604, *4 (E.D. Mich.

2009) (no Eighth Amendment violation where plaintiff was labeled a “rat,” but did not show actual

physical injury).

In this case, Plaintiff neither alleges nor establishes that he suffered any physical harm as a

result of Deputy Sheriff Edington’s alleged improper comments about his cooperation with the

authorities. He presents no facts or documentation to show that he was assaulted or injured by

fellow inmates or anyone else at the Sanilac County Jail. Plaintiff thus fails to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted under § 1983 in his complaint.

B. Claims Against the Sanilac County Sheriff

Plaintiff also names the Sanilac County Sheriff as a defendant in this action. Plaintiff,

however, does not allege any facts demonstrating his personal involvement in the events giving rise

4

2:15-cv-12378-SFC-MJH Doc # 5 Filed 07/31/15 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 20
to this action. It is well-settled that a plaintiff must allege the personal involvement of a defendant

to state a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Monell v. Department of Social Svs., 436

U.S. 658, 691-92 (1978) (Section 1983 liability cannot be based upon a theory of respondeat

superior or vicarious liability); Everson v. Leis, 556 F.3d 484, 495 (6th Cir. 2009) (same); see also

Taylor v. Michigan Dep’t of Corrections, 69 F.3d 716, 727-28 (6th Cir. 1995) (plaintiff must allege

facts showing that the defendant participated, condoned, encouraged, or knowingly acquiesced in

alleged misconduct to establish liability). Plaintiff does not allege any facts to show that the Sanilac

County Sheriff personally engaged in unconstitutional conduct. He thus fails to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted under § 1983 as to the Sanilac County Sheriff for this additional reason.

III. CONCLUSION

The Court concludes that Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted in

his complaint. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the civil rights complaint

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). Lastly, the Court concludes that an

appeal from this order would be frivolous and cannot be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. §

1915(a)(3); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 31, 2015 S/ Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

U. S. District Judge

I hereby certify that on July 31, 2015, the foregoing document was served on counsel of record via

electronic means and upon Lamount Sapp via First Class mail at the address below:

Lamount Sapp 32080039 

Midland County Jail 

105 Ice Drive 

Midland, MI 48640 

S/ J. McCoy 

Case Manager 

5

2:15-cv-12378-SFC-MJH Doc # 5 Filed 07/31/15 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 21