1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ALLEN DAVID DANIEL,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No.

08-CV-14000

vs.

HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN

MARK HACKEL, et. al.,

Defendants.

_______________________/

OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

I. Introduction

This matter is presently before the Court on the Court’s own review of Plaintiff’s pro

se civil rights Complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a state prisoner currently

confined at the Baraga Maximum Correctional Facility in Baraga, Michigan. For the reasons stated

below, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon

which relief can be granted and as barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

II. Legal Standard for Dismissal

In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) he

or she 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.

Absent either element, a § 1983 claim will not lie. Hakken v. Washtenaw County, 901 F. Supp.

1245, 1249 (E.D. Mich. 1995). A pro se civil rights complaint is to be construed liberally.

Middleton v. McGinnis, 860 F. Supp. 391, 392 (E.D. Mich. 1994). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
2

1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915(e)(2)(A), a district court must sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis

complaint before service on the defendant if satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious, that

it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that it seeks monetary relief from a

defendant or defendants who are immune from such relief. McLittle v. O’Brien, 974 F. Supp. 635,

636 (E.D. Mich. 1997).

III. Plaintiff’s Complaint

Plaintiff has filed a lawsuit against seventeen defendants, including the Macomb

County Sheriff, and sixteen of his employees. Plaintiff claims that while he was incarcerated in the

Macomb County Jail on an unspecified criminal charge, the defendants took his legal mail and his

legal property and retaliated against him as a pre-trial detainee prior to and during his criminal trial.

For relief, Plaintiff seeks $750,000 in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive damages.

IV. Discussion

The Complaint is subject to dismissal because Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts

which show each individual defendant’s personal involvement or responsibility in the alleged

constitutional violations.

In the context of a civil rights claim, conclusory allegations of unconstitutional

conduct without specific factual allegations fail to state a claim under § 1983; some factual basis for

such claims must be set forth in the pleadings. Lillard v. Shelby County Bd. of Educ., 76 F. 3d 716,

726 (6th Cir. 1996); See also Johnson v. Freeburn, 29 F. Supp. 2d 764, 767 (E.D. Mich. 1998). A

complaint must allege that the defendants were personally involved in the alleged deprivation of

federal rights. See Hall v. United States, 704 F. 2d 246, 251 (6th Cir. 1983). Although plaintiff has

listed these seventeen defendants in the caption of his Complaint, he entirely fails to identify them
1 The Court notes that Plaintiff has previously filed two civil rights complaints in this

court, both of which that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim

upon which relief can be granted. See Daniel v. Granholm, et. al., 08-CV-10999 (E.D. Mich.

April 11, 2008); Daniel v. Caruso, et. al., 08-CV-11000 (E.D. Mich. April 10, 2008). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff is put on notice that this dismissal constitutes his “third strike” under the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which prevents a prisoner who has had three prior suits

dismissed for being frivolous, from proceeding in forma pauperis in a civil rights suit absent an

allegation that the prisoner is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. See Hurley v.

Buentello, 64 Fed. Appx. 418 (5th Cir. 2003); Boles v. Matthews, 173 F.3d 854 (Table), 1999

WL 183472 (6th Cir. March 15, 1999). 

3

or explain anywhere in his Complaint their roles in the alleged violations. The Complaint is

therefore subject to summary dismissal pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Asberry v. Bisig, 70 Fed.

Appx. 247, 248-49 (6th Cir. 2003). Stated differently, Plaintiff’s Complaint is subject to dismissal

because Plaintiff has failed to allege with any degree of specificity which of the named defendants

were personally involved in, or responsible for, each of the alleged violations of his federal rights.

See Frazier v. Michigan, 41 Fed. Appx. 762, 764 (6th Cir. 2002); see also Branham v. Jabe, 853 F.

2d 926 (Table), 1988 WL 81713, * 1 (6th Cir. August 5, 1988) (district court properly granted

summary judgment where prisoner in civil rights case failed to allege any personal involvement on

the part of the defendants in the events complained of). Accordingly, the Court will dismiss

Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B).1

In addition, the claims contained in the present Complaint are barred by the doctrine

of res judicata. On March 10, 2008, Plaintiff filed a pro se civil rights Complaint in which he

alleged, in part, that “the Defendants . . . stole my mail . . .” See Daniel v. Caruso, 08-CV-11000

(E.D. Mich. Apr. 10, 2008), docket entry 1, p. 3. On April 10, 2008, Judge George Caram Steeh

dismissed the complaint “as frivolous and for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§

1915(e)(2).” Id. at docket entry 7, p. 3. According to the Sixth Circuit, 
2

 Moreover, the Sixth Circuit has stated that the doctrine of res judicata may be raised by

the district court, sua sponte, “in the interest[] of . . . the promotion of judicial economy.” 

Holloway Constr. Co. v. United States Dep’t of Labor, 891 F.2d 1211, 1212 (6th Cir. 1989).

4

a claim will be barred by prior litigation if the following elements are

present: (1) a final decision on the merits by a court of competent

jurisdiction; (2) a subsequent action between the same parties or their

“privies”; (3) an issue in the subsequent action which was litigated or which

should have been litigated in the prior action; and (4) an identity of the

causes of action.

Bittinger v. Tecumseh Prods. Co., 123 F.3d 877, 880 (6th Cir. 1997). All four requirements are

satisfied with respect to the present claim. The doctrine of res judicata therefore bars this Court,

or any other court, from considering the issue again.2

 

V. Conclusion

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed with prejudice (1) for failure

to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and (2) as barred

by the doctrine of res judicata. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any appeal by Plaintiff would be frivolous and not

in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962).

S/Bernard A. Friedman

Dated: September 25, 2008 BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN

Detroit, Michigan CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE