1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

MICHAEL T. McLAUGHLIN, 

 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cv-11607 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

 

JOHN H. WILSON et. al., 

 Defendants. 

 / 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF #2), SUMMARILY DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

(ECF #1), AND DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AS MOOT (ECF #3) 

INTRODUCTION

 On May 1, 2015, Plaintiff Michael T. McLaughlin (“McLaughlin”), a 

prisoner currently confined at the Southern Desert Correctional Center in Indian 

Springs, Nevada, filed the instant pro-se civil-rights action. (See the “Complaint,” 

ECF #1.) McLaughlin has also applied to proceed in forma pauperis (see the 

“Application,” ECF #2) and for the appointment of counsel. (See the “Counsel 

Motion,” ECF #3.) For the reasons stated below, Court GRANTS the Application, 

DISMISSES the Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted, and DENIES the Counsel Motion as moot. 

2:15-cv-11607-MFL-APP Doc # 5 Filed 05/13/15 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 34
2

McLAUGHLIN’S ALLEGATIONS 

 McLaughlin alleges that Defendants John H. Wilson (“Wilson”) and Lari 

Zeka (“Zeka”) violated his civil rights. Specifically, McLaughlin claims that 

Wilson and Zeka were involved in a legal research scheme through which they 

defrauded numerous inmates and family members of over two million dollars. 

(See Compl. at Ex. 1, Pg. ID 8.) McLaughlin says that Wilson and Zeka defrauded 

him, and, in addition, that he was investigated for possible involvement in their 

scheme. (See id. at 4, Pg. ID 4.) McLaughlin claims that during the investigation 

into his possible connection with the scheme, Nevada prison authorities placed him 

into an administrative segregation unit for six months and subjected him to other 

disciplinary acts. (See id. at 4-5, Pg. ID 4-5.) McLaughlin was eventually cleared 

of any involvement in Wilson’s and Zeka’s scheme and released from segregation. 

(Id.) 

 McLaughlin brings his action “pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983” and “seek[s] to 

redress the violation of civil rights secured by the Constitution of the United 

States.” (Id. at 2, Pg. ID 2.) He asserts claims for monetary damages against 

Wilson and Zeka for “obtaining money by false pretenses,” “false imprisonment,” 

and “cruel and unusual punishment.” (Id.) 

2:15-cv-11607-MFL-APP Doc # 5 Filed 05/13/15 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 35
3

GOVERNING LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Court is required to sua 

sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint before service on a defendant if the 

Court determines that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim 

upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 

immune from such relief. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(c); see also 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B). 

 A pro se litigant's complaint, like the one McLaughlin filed here, is to be 

construed liberally. See Middleton v. McGinnis, 860 F.Supp. 391, 392 (E.D. Mich. 

1994) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). “Such complaints, 

however, must plead facts sufficient to show a legal wrong has been committed 

from which plaintiff may be granted relief.” Goodell v. Anthony, 157 F.Supp.2d 

799 (E.D. Mich. 2001); see also Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989) 

(“Neither [the Supreme Court] nor other courts [] have been willing to abrogate 

basic pleading essentials in pro se suits”). 

 ANALYSIS 

To establish a prima facie case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must 

establish “both that 1) []he was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or 

laws of the United States and 2) the deprivation was caused by a person acting 

2:15-cv-11607-MFL-APP Doc # 5 Filed 05/13/15 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 36
4

under color of state law.” Redding v. St. Eward, 241 F.3d 530, 532 (6th Cir. 2001). 

“If a plaintiff fails to make a showing on any essential element of a § 1983 claim, it 

must fail.” Id.

McLaughlin’s allegations against Wilson and Zeka fail to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted because McLaughlin has not pleaded that either Wilson 

or Zeka acted under the color of state law or were involved in a “joint activity with 

state officials.” Goodell, 157 F.Supp.2d at 800 (E.D. Mich. 2001). As in Goodell, 

McLaughlin’s Complaint fails “because [McLaughlin] has alleged no facts which 

would suggest that [either Wilson or Zeka] was acting under color of state law” 

when they defrauded McLaughlin or any of the other inmates.1

 Id. at 801.

 Moreover, McLaughlin cannot assert civil rights claims against Wilson and 

Zeka based on the actions of the Nevada prison authorities who allegedly placed 

McLaughlin in administrative segregation while he was being investigated for 

possible involvement in the legal research scheme. A complaint must allege that 

the defendants were personally involved in a deprivation of federal rights. See 

Hall v. United States, 704 F.2d 246, 251 (6th Cir. 1983) (affirming dismissal of 

claim against group manager for IRS because the plaintiff did not “point[] to any 

 

1

 Moreover, to the extent McLaughlin attempts to bring any claims against Wilson 

and Zeka that are not premised upon 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he has failed to plead how 

this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over these claims. 

2:15-cv-11607-MFL-APP Doc # 5 Filed 05/13/15 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 37
5

evidence that [the defendant group manager] personally deprived her of any 

statutory or constitutional rights”). Here, McLaughlin has not alleged in the 

Complaint that either Wilson or Zeka had any role in the alleged decision by 

Nevada prison authorities to place him in administrative segregation. For all of 

these reasons, McLaughlin’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can 

be granted. 

 CONCLUSION 

 Based on the representations in the Application, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED THAT the Application is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER 

ORDERED that McLaughlin’s Complaint (ECF #1) is DISMISSED for failure to 

state a claim; and that McLaughlin’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF 

#3) is DENIED AS MOOT. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: May 13, 2015 

 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on May 13, 2015, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113

2:15-cv-11607-MFL-APP Doc # 5 Filed 05/13/15 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 38