UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DEXTER B. POOLE,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09-CV-13093

v. HONORABLE ARTHUR J. TARNOW

MICHIGAN REFORMATORY, et al., 

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

ORDER OF PARTIAL SUMMARY DISMISSAL AND TO SHOW CAUSE

I. Introduction

The Court has before it Plaintiff Dexter Poole’s pro se civil rights complaint brought

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a state prisoner currently confined at the Macomb

Correctional Facility in New Haven, Michigan. He has been granted leave to proceed without

prepayment of the filing fee for this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). In his complaint, Plaintiff

asserts that he has been improperly denied prison visitation privileges and that he has been

subject to retaliation and discrimination. He names three Michigan Department of Corrections

(“MDOC”) prisons, the MDOC, and several MDOC employees as defendants in this action. He

seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief.

For the reasons stated herein, the Court dismisses the prison and MDOC defendants and

orders Plaintiff to show cause as to why his claims against the remaining defendants should not

be dismissed.

II. Standards under the PLRA and 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), the Court is required to sua sponte

2:09-cv-13093-AJT-DAS Doc # 6 Filed 09/11/09 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 127
2

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 monetary relief from

a defendant who is immune from such relief. 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). A pro se complaint should be liberally

construed and held to a “less stringent standard” than one drafted by an attorney. See Haines v.

Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even a pro se complaint, however, must plead facts sufficient

to show a legal wrong has been committed for which the plaintiff may be granted relief.

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) he 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. See Flagg

Bros. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 155-57 (1978); Brock v. McWherter, 94 F.3d 242, 244 (6th Cir.

1996).

III. Dismissal of Michigan Reformatory, Earnest C. Brooks Correctional

Facility, Macomb Correctional Facility, and the MDOC

Plaintiff names the Michigan Reformatory, the Earnest C. Brooks Correctional Facility,

and the Macomb Correctional Facility as defendants in this action. Those entities, however, are

institutions operated by the MDOC and are not “persons” or legal entities subject to suit under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Brooks v. Huron Valley Men’s Prison, No. 2:06-CV-12687, 2006 WL

2:09-cv-13093-AJT-DAS Doc # 6 Filed 09/11/09 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 128
3

2423106, *1 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 21, 2006) (citing cases establishing that a prison building is not a

“person” subject to suit under § 1983); Webber v. Standish Maximum Prison, No. 2:06-CV11921, 2006 WL 1284610, *2 (E.D. Mich. May 10, 2006) (same).

Plaintiff also names the MDOC as a defendant in this action. Plaintiff's claims against

the MDOC are subject to dismissal based upon Eleventh Amendment immunity. The Eleventh

Amendment provides immunity to a state and its agencies from suit in federal court unless the

state expressly waives immunity or Congress clearly abrogates the Eleventh Amendment in

legislation designed to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment. See Welch v. Texas Dep't. of

Highways and Public Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 472-74 (1987). As Congress did not abrogate the

Eleventh Amendment when enacting § 1983, neither a state, a state agency, nor a state official

sued in his official capacity is a "person" subject to suit under § 1983. See Will v. Michigan

Dep't. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66-71 (1989). Unless immunity is expressly waived, a state

and its agencies are immune from an action for damages and injunctive relief. See Pennhurst

State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100-01 (1984); Thiokol Corp. v. Dep't. of

Treasury, State of Mich., Revenue Div., 987 F.2d 376, 381 (6th Cir. 1993). The United States

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has expressly held that the MDOC is immune from suit

under the Eleventh Amendment. See Turnboe v. Stegall, No. 00-1182, 2000 WL 1679478, *2

(6th Cir. Nov. 1, 2000) (unpublished); Ritchie v. Michigan Dept. of Corr., 826 F.2d 1065, 1987

WL 38524, *1 (6th Cir. 1987) (unpublished). Plaintiff's claims against the MDOC must be

dismissed.

2:09-cv-13093-AJT-DAS Doc # 6 Filed 09/11/09 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 129
4

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the civil rights complaint as

to defendants Michigan Reformatory, Earnest C. Brooks Correctional Facility, Macomb

Correctional Facility, and the MDOC.

IV. Show Cause re: Remaining Defendants

Plaintiff also names 16 MDOC employees as defendants in this action. His complaint,

however, in unclear as to the specific allegations of unconstitutional conduct by each defendant. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint set forth “a short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, ” as well as “a demand for

the relief sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), (3). The purpose of this rule is 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, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957) and Fed.

R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). While this notice pleading standard does require not require “detailed”

factual allegations, it does require more than the bare assertion of legal conclusions. See

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Rule 8 “demands more than an unadorned, the

defendant-unlawfully-harmed me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, _ U.S. _, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949

(2009). “A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions' or ‘a formulaic recitation of the

elements of a cause of action will not do.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “Nor does a

complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’” 

Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).

Furthermore, it is well-settled that a civil rights plaintiff must allege the personal

involvement of a defendant to state a claim under § 1983 and that liability cannot be based upon

a theory of respondeat superior or vicarious liability. See Monell v. Department of Social Svs.,

2:09-cv-13093-AJT-DAS Doc # 6 Filed 09/11/09 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 130
5

436 U.S. 658, 691-92 (1978); see also Turner v. City of Taylor, 412 F.3d 629, 643) (6th Cir.

2005) (plaintiff must allege facts showing that defendant participated, condoned, encouraged, or

knowingly acquiesced in alleged misconduct to establish liability). Moreover, conclusory

allegations are insufficient to state a civil rights claim under § 1983. See, e.g., Lanier v. Bryant,

332 F.3d 999, 1007 (6th Cir. 2003).

In this case, Plaintiff has failed to clearly set forth his specific factual allegations against

each of the individually named defendants. The Court is thus unable to discern whether he has

stated a claim against those defendants which, if true, would entitle him to relief. Accordingly,

the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE within 30 DAYS of the filing date of this order

why his complaint as to the remaining defendants should not be dismissed for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff must submit a clear

and concise statement of his specific factual allegations of unconstitutional conduct against each

of the remaining defendants. The Court will then review those allegations to determine if his

complaint should be served upon any of those defendants or should be summarily dismissed. 

Should Plaintiff fail to comply with this order, his complaint will also be subject to summary

dismissal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Arthur J. Tarnow 

Arthur J. Tarnow

United States District Judge

Dated: September 11, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon parties/counsel of record on September 11,

2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Catherine A. Pickles 

Judicial Secretary

2:09-cv-13093-AJT-DAS Doc # 6 Filed 09/11/09 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 131