UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

L. C. BRADDOCK, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case Number: 09-cv-10586

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

M. MAURER, et. al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL

This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The Court has granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and Plaintiff shall pay

the initial partial filing fee when funds become available. Under the Prison Litigation

Reform Act, Pub.L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996), the Court is required to dismiss

any prisoner action brought under federal law if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a

defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b); 42 U.S.C. §

1997e(c). The Court must read Plaintiff’s pro se complaint indulgently, see Haines v.

Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and accept Plaintiff’s allegations as true, unless they are

clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).

Applying those standards, Plaintiff’s action will be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

2:09-cv-10586-SJM-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 04/08/09 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 35
-2-

I. Discussion

A. Factual allegations

Although Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at the Michigan Reformatory in Ionia,

Michigan, his complaint arises as a result of an incident that occurred at the St. Louis

Correctional Facility in St. Louis, Michigan. On July 13, 2008, Plaintiff was sent to the hole

for alleged sexual misconduct. When he returned on September 10, 2008, he discovered

that his television, tape player, headphones, and three tapes were missing. He

subsequently filed a grievance contending that the Defendants did not secure his property

when he was sent to the hole and thus violated prison policies. An investigation

determined that Plaintiff, himself, was responsible for the loss of his property because he

had not secured it when he went to the restroom. Plaintiff’s property was found not when

his belongings were packed. 

Plaintiff brings this action against Resident Unit Officers M. Maurer and R. Newville.

For relief, he seeks monetary damages.

B. Failure to State a Claim

A complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it fails to “‘give the

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007) (quoting Conley v.

Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)); see also Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73

(1984). The standard requires that a “complaint must contain either direct or inferential

allegations respecting all the material elements to sustain a recovery under some viable

legal theory.” Glassner v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 223 F.3d 343, 346 (6th Cir. 2001).

2:09-cv-10586-SJM-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 04/08/09 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 36
-3-

While a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s allegations must

include more than labels and conclusions. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1965; Lewis v. ACB

Business Serv., Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 405 (6th Cir. 1998) (holding that a court need not

accept as true legal conclusions or unwarranted factual inferences). Here, the Court must

determine whether the complaint contains “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face.” Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1974; see also United States ex rel SNAPP,

Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 532 F.3d 496, 502 (6th Cir. 2008); United States ex rel. Bledsoe v.

Comty. Health Sys., Inc., 501 F.3d 493, 502 (6th Cir. 2007).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a

right secured by the federal Constitution or laws and must show that the deprivation was

committed by a person acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48

(1988); Street v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 102 F.3d 810, 814 (6th Cir. 1996). Because § 1983

is a method for vindicating federal rights, not a source of substantive rights itself, the first

step in an action under § 1983 is to identify the specific constitutional right allegedly

infringed. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994).

Pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, no State shall

“deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” U.S. Const.

amend. XIV, § 1. A prisoner asserting a due process violation with regard to the

deprivation of personal property must demonstrate either (1) that his loss resulted from an

established unconstitutional state procedure, or (2) that a “random and unauthorized” act

caused his deprivation, and that no state remedies are available to compensate him for his

loss. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533, (1984); Warren v. City of Athens, Ohio,

411 F.3d 697, 709-710 (6th Cir. 2005). In this case, because Plaintiff is not complaining

2:09-cv-10586-SJM-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 04/08/09 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 37
-4-

of an established prison policy condoning the unconstitutional deprivation of prisoners’

property, he must satisfy the second test. In order to succeed, Plaintiff must both plead

and prove that state remedies for redressing the alleged wrongful deprivation are

inadequate. See Hahn v. Star Bank, 190 F.3d 708, 716 (6th Cir. 1999).

Plaintiff does not allege that state post-deprivation remedies are inadequate. In fact,

numerous state post-deprivation remedies are available to him. A prisoner who incurs a

loss through no fault of his own may petition the institution’s Prisoner Benefit Fund for

compensation. Mich. Dep’t of Corr. Policy Directive 04.07.112, ¶ B (effective Nov. 15,

2004). Prisoners may also submit claims for property loss of less than $1,000 to the State

Administrative Board. MICH.COMP.LAWS § 600.6419. Michigan law also provides for a civil

action to recover possession of, or damages for, property unlawfully taken or detained.

MICH. COMP. LAWS § 600.2920. In addition, Michigan law authorizes actions in the Court

of Claims to recover for alleged unjustifiable acts of state officials. MICH. COMP. LAWS §

600.6401. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has specifically held that Michigan provides

adequate post-deprivation remedies for deprivation of property. See Copeland v. Machulis,

57 F.3d 476, 480 (6th Cir. 1995). Because Plaintiff does not allege any reason why a

state-court action would not afford him complete relief for the deprivation of his property,

he has failed to state a claim that entitles him to relief under § 1983.

Against that backdrop, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state

a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c).

II. Conclusion

2:09-cv-10586-SJM-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 04/08/09 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 38
-5-

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s civil rights complaint. Additionally, the

Court concludes that an appeal from this order 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, 611 (6th Cir. 1997).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Stephen J. Murphy, III 

STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

United States District Judge

Dated: April 8, 2009

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

and/or counsel of record on April 8, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Alissa Greer 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-10586-SJM-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 04/08/09 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 39