UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

AL DUJUAN BAILEY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case Number: 09-CV-10356

Honorable Lawrence P. Zatkoff

CITY OF DETROIT, et. al.,

Defendants.

______________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER 

DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND 

CONCLUDING THAT AN APPEAL CANNOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH

I. Introduction

Al DuJuan Bailey (“Plaintiff”), a Michigan prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint

seeking damages as a result of his confinement in the Wayne County, Michigan, jail. The Court will

construe the complaint as a complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has also

granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. §

1915(a). In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he is being held in violation of his rights. He seeks

monetary damages. Having reviewed the complaint, the Court dismisses it for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted. The Court also concludes that an appeal cannot be taken

in good faith.

II. Discussion

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996)

(“PLRA”), the Court is required to sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint before service

2:09-cv-10356-LPZ-CEB Doc # 6 Filed 02/25/09 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 15
-2-

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 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such

relief. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(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

relief from a defendant who is immune from suit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. A complaint is frivolous

if it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31

(1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

To state a federal civil rights claim, a plaintiff must show that: (1) the defendant is a person

who acted under color of state or federal law, and (2) the defendant’s conduct deprived the plaintiff

of a federal right, privilege, or immunity. See Flagg Bros. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 155-57 (1978);

Brock v. McWherter, 94 F.3d 242, 244 (6th Cir. 1996). A pro se civil rights complaint is to be

construed liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Jones v. Duncan, 840 F.2d

359, 361 (6th Cir. 1988). In this case, despite the liberal pleading standard accorded pro se

plaintiffs, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to summary dismissal.

Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to dismissal because he challenges his continued

imprisonment–which fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A claim under § 1983 is an appropriate remedy for a state prisoner challenging a condition of his

imprisonment, see Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499 (1973), not the validity of his continued

confinement. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) (holding that a state prisoner

does not state a cognizable civil rights claim challenging his imprisonment if a ruling on his claim

would necessarily render his continuing confinement invalid, until and unless the reason for his

2:09-cv-10356-LPZ-CEB Doc # 6 Filed 02/25/09 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 16
-3-

continued confinement has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared

invalid by a state tribunal, or has been called into question by a federal court’s issuance or a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254). This holds true regardless of the relief sought by the

plaintiff. Id. at 487-89.

Heck and other Supreme Court cases, when “taken together, indicate that a state prisoner’s

§ 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation)–no matter the relief sought (damages or equitable

relief), no matter the target of the prisoner’s suit (state conduct leading to conviction or internal

prison proceedings)–if success in that action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of

confinement or its duration.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005).

Plaintiff appears to be arguing in his complaint that (1) he was falsely arrested, (2) certain

officers planted evidence in order to effectuate his arrest, (3) evidence was not preserved, (4) he was

denied his right to fire his appointed counsel, and (5) the jail did not have a proper law library. It

is Plaintiff’s position that because of those facts, he has been incarcerated in violation of his

constitutional rights. Considering Plaintiff’s statement of facts as stated, the Court finds that he is

challenging the validity of his continued confinement. Plaintiff has thus failed to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; therefore, his complaint is barred by Heck and

the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons stated, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES

Plaintiff’s civil rights complaint. Additionally, the Court concludes that an appeal from this order

2:09-cv-10356-LPZ-CEB Doc # 6 Filed 02/25/09 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 17
-4-

would be frivolous and therefore cannot be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); see also

McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610-11 (6th Cir. 1997).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: February 25, 2009

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this Order was served upon the attorneys of

record by electronic or U.S. mail on February 25, 2009.

s/Marie E. Verlinde 

Case Manager

(810) 984-3290

2:09-cv-10356-LPZ-CEB Doc # 6 Filed 02/25/09 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 18