UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KARLOS LATWIAN HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case Number: 09-CV-11006

Honorable Arthur J. Tarnow

G. ROBERT COTTON CORRECTIONAL

FACILITY, et. al.,

Defendants.

______________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER 

DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND DENYING MOTIONS

I. Introduction

Karlos Latwian Harris (“Plaintiff”), a Michigan prisoner, has filed a civil complaint

seeking damages, which the Court construes as a complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. (Dkt. # 1.) Plaintiff has also filed motions for a temporary restraining order and

preliminary injunction and for alternate service. (Dkt. ## 3 & 4.) The Court has 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 Defendants arbitrarily seized his private property,

namely taking his picture, by means of intimidation, extortion, and fraud. Plaintiff names the G.

Robert Cotton Correctional Facility and Sergeant Parsons, an employee, as Defendants in this

action. He seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. Having reviewed the complaint, the

Court dismisses it for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. As a result of

the dismissal of this action, Plaintiff’s motions for a temporary restraining order and preliminary

injunction and for alternate service are denied as moot. (Dkt. # # 3 & 4.) 

2:09-cv-11006-AJT-VMM Doc # 6 Filed 03/27/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 65
-2-

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 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). Despite the liberal pleading standard accorded

pro se plaintiffs, the Court finds that the complaint is subject to summary dismissal.

Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to dismissal because he challenges the Prison’s right to

take his picture– which fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C. §

1983. Plaintiff’s complaint is conclusory. Conclusory, unsupported allegations of the

deprivation of rights protected by the United States Constitution or federal laws are insufficient

2:09-cv-11006-AJT-VMM Doc # 6 Filed 03/27/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 66
-3-

to state a claim. See Morgan v. Church’s Fried Chicken, 829 F.2d 10, 12 (6th Cir. 1987);

Chapman v. City of Detroit, 808 F.2d 459, 465 (6th Cir. 1986). 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). This holds true regardless of the relief sought by the

plaintiff. Id. at 487-89. Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants took his picture by intimidating

him. Plaintiff never offers anything beyond this conclusory allegation to suggest that this was a

violation of some official policy. See Lanier v. Bryant, 332 F.3d 999, 1007 (6th Cir. 2003). 

Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a proper claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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. Given this determination, the Court also DENIES Plaintiff’s

motions for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction and for alternate service. 

(Dkt. # # 3 & 4.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Arthur J. Tarnow 

Arthur J. Tarnow

Dated: March 27, 2009 United States District Judge

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on March 27, 2009, by

electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Catherine A. Pickles 

Judicial Secretary

2:09-cv-11006-AJT-VMM Doc # 6 Filed 03/27/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 67