1 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) provides, in pertinent part:

Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that

may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any

time if the court determines that –

. . .

(B) the action or appeal –

. . .

(ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted . . . 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ALLEN DANIEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

BLAINE LAFLER, ET AL.,

Defendants. 

 /

Case No. 2:08-CV-13817

OPINION AND ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL AND 

DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL COPIES

Plaintiff Allen Daniel has filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. Plaintiff, a state inmate currently incarcerated at the Baraga Maximum

Correctional Facility in Baraga, Michigan, is proceeding without prepayment of the filing

fee in this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). After careful consideration, the Court

dismisses forty Defendants, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2),1 because Plaintiff fails

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted with respect to these Defendants. 

I. BACKGROUND

In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he has been the victim of retaliation by
2

 Where available, the court lists the defendants’ first and last names. However,

for the majority of the named defendants, Plaintiff provides only a last name. 

2

various state officials and Michigan Department of Corrections’ employees. Plaintiff

claims that the retaliatory acts are motivated by several lawsuits he has filed against

Governor Jennifer Granholm, Attorney General Mike Cox, Macomb and Wayne County

Prosecutors, and court officers. Plaintiff claims that he was verbally threatened,

deprived of food for forty-four days, served food contaminated by chemicals, doused in

chemicals thrown on him by other inmates at the urging of corrections officers, deprived

of his legal documents, and issued false misconduct tickets. 

II. DISCUSSION

A.

In the case caption, Plaintiff names as defendants2

 Mohumad, Lou LNU, Kulvika,

Dove, Caberlleeo, Shendorph, Patton, Hollerbeck, Empson, Rookowkur, J. Davis,

Bayshore, Radtz, Hollands, Mike Cox, Leo Friedman, Patricia Caruso, Jennifer

Granholm, Morris, White, Lynch, Brown, John Doe, Office of Administrative Hearing,

Gary Heisler, Kenneth McEacher, Laura Hiertz, James Armstrong, Richard Stapleton,

Civil Service Commission, and James O. Farrell. However, in the body of his complaint,

Plaintiff fails to assert any specific claims against these defendants. Federal courts hold

pro se complaints to a “less stringent standard” than complaints drafted by attorneys. 

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). Nonetheless, such complaints “must plead

facts sufficient to show a legal wrong has been committed from which plaintiff may be

granted relief.” Mullins v. Smith, 14 F. Supp. 2d 1009, 1011 (E.D. Mich. 1998). Even

holding Plaintiff’s complaint to the less stringent standard applicable to pro se
3

complaints, this Court must dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against these Defendants because

Plaintiff fails to plead any facts to show a legal wrong has been committed. 

B.

Plaintiff asserts a single claim against defendants Cole, Terri and Dell. He claims

that these Defendants said, “Daniel’s going to have a hard time around here.” Plaintiff

argues that this statement was intended as a threat to him. 

“[I]t is well-established that verbal harassment or abuse – standing alone – is not

sufficient to state a constitutional deprivation under section 1983.” Gilson v. Cox, 711 F.

Supp. 354, 355 (E.D. Mich. 1989). See also Moore v. County of Muskegon, No. 99-

1379, 1999 WL 1253096, *1 (6th Cir. Dec. 17, 1999) (“[V]erbal threats do not constitute

a § 1983 claim.”); McDowell v. Jones, 990 F.2d 433, 434 (8th Cir. 1993) (“[v]erbal

threats and name-calling usually are not actionable under § 1983"); Bender v. Brumley,

1 F.3d 271, 274 (5th Cir. 1993) (“[m]ere allegations of verbal abuse do not present

actionable claims under § 1983"). Because verbal threats alone do not constitute a

constitutional violation under § 1983, Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted as to defendants Cole, Terri and Dell. 

C.

Finally, Defendants Bentley, McCormic, Webster, Lafler, Rivard, and

Washington’s alleged liability is based upon their supervisory authority. Plaintiff alleges

no specific involvement of these Defendants in the alleged unconstitutional conduct. 

The doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply in § 1983 lawsuits to impute

liability onto supervisory personnel, see Monell v. Department of Social Services of New

York, 436 U.S. 658, 691-95 (1978), unless it is shown “that the supervisor encouraged
4

the specific incident of misconduct or in some other way directly participated in it,”

Bellamy v. Bradley, 729 F.2d 416, 421 (6th Cir. 1984). “Liability of supervisory

personnel must be based on more than merely the right to control employees.” Leach

v. Shelby County Sheriff, 891 F.2d 1241, 1246 (6th Cir. 1989) (internal quotation

omitted). 

[A] supervisory official’s failure to supervise, control or train the offending

individual is not actionable unless the supervisor “either encouraged the

specific incident of misconduct or in some other way directly participated

in it. At a minimum a plaintiff must show that the official at least implicitly

authorized, approved, or knowingly acquiesced in the unconstitutional

conduct . . .” 

Shehee v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295, 300 (6th Cir. 1999) (quoting Hays v. Jefferson County,

Ky., 668 F.2d 869, 874 (6th Cir. 1982)). “Supervisory liability under § 1983 cannot

attach where the allegation of liability is based upon a mere failure to act.” Bass v.

Robinson, 167 F.3d 1041, 1048 (6th Cir. 1999). “Instead, the liability must be based

upon active unconstitutional behavior.” Id. 

In this case, Plaintiff fails to allege any specific conduct by these Defendants that

would support a finding that they directly participated in, encouraged, or implicitly

authorized or approved the alleged unconstitutional conduct. Accordingly, the court will

dismiss the claims against Defendants Bentley, McCormic, Webster, Lafler, Rivard, and

Washington. 

III. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against the

following Defendants: Bentley, Mohumad, Lou LNU, Kulvika, McCormic, Webster, Dove,

Caberlleeo, Shendorph, Patton, Hollerbeck, Empson, Rookowkur, J. Davis, Bayshore,
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\08-13817.DANIEL.partial dismissal.1983.prisonconditions.wpd

5

Radtz, Hollands, Mike Cox, Leo Friedman, Patricia Caruso, Jennifer Granholm, Morris,

White, Lynch, Brown, John Doe, Office of Administrative Hearing, Gary Heisler,

Kenneth McEacher, Laura Hiertz, James Armstrong, Richard Stapleton, Civil Service

Commission, James O. Farrell, Terri, Dell, Cole, Lafler, Rivard, and Washington. IT IS

ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s claims against these Defendants are DISMISSED. 

The court determines that service of the complaint is appropriate on the

remaining defendants. However, the court may not, at this time, direct service of the

complaint upon the remaining defendants because Plaintiff has failed to file with the

court a sufficient number of copies for service. See Fed R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1) (“The plaintiff

. . . shall furnish the person effecting service with the necessary copies of the . . .

complaint”). 

Therefore, the court FURTHER ORDERS Plaintiff to file thirteen copies of his

complaint and attachments with the court on or before October 23, 2008. Failure to file

the required copies may result in the dismissal of the complaint. 

s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: September 25, 2008

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, September 25, 2008, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Lisa G. Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522