UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

HOWARD V. WILLIAMS, ANTONIAL

RANDLE, ROY ROBINSON, DAVID

GREEN, SHAWN MCDEW, and

CHARLES PETTIES, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT and

FCI MILAN,

Defendants.

/

Case Number: 2:09-cv-12707

HON. PATRICK J. DUGGAN

ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL

At a session of said Court, held in the U.S.

District Courthouse, Eastern District 

of Michigan, on August 4, 2009.

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

This is a prisoner civil rights case filed under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed.

Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S. Ct. 1999 (1971). Plaintiff Howard V. Williams, a

federal inmate currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Milan,

Michigan (“FCI-Milan”), filed and signed the pro se complaint and filed an application to

proceed without pre-payment of fees and costs. The Court granted Plaintiff Williams in

forma pauperis status. The complaint will be summarily dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

2:09-cv-12707-PJD-VMM Doc # 4 Filed 08/04/09 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 14
1 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) provides, in pertinent part:

Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may

have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the

court determines that –

. . .

(B) the action or appeal –

. . .

(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from

such relief. 

2

§ 1915(e)(2),1 because it seeks monetary relief from defendants immune from such relief. 

The complaint also names five additional FCI-Milan prisoners as additional plaintiffs. 

For the reasons set forth below, the dismissal is without prejudice as to those plaintiffs. 

I.

The complaint arises from alleged exposure to asbestos. Plaintiff Williams alleges

that he was employed as a boiler room attendant and steamfitter for nine years while

incarcerated at FCI-Milan. He discovered asbestos in the areas where he worked. He

was told that the levels of asbestos were harmless. He alleges that he currently suffers

from various health problems, including skin sores, chest pain, edema, and headaches,

which he attributes to asbestos exposure. The named defendants are the United States of

America and FCI-Milan. Plaintiff Williams seeks ten million dollars in damages. 

A claim against the United States or its agencies is barred absent a waiver of

sovereign immunity. United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 96 S. Ct. 948 (1976). Such a

waiver cannot be implied; it must be expressed unequivocally. Id. at 399. The United

States has not waived its immunity to suit in a Bivens action. Nuclear Transport &

2:09-cv-12707-PJD-VMM Doc # 4 Filed 08/04/09 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 15
3

Storage, Inc. v. United States, 890 F.2d 1348, 1351-52 (6th Cir. 1989). Therefore, the

claims against the United States and FCI-Milan are improper and must be denied. Accord

Yancey v. Federal Correctional Institute, Nos. 90-5438, 90-5518, 1990 WL 191672, *1

(6th Cir. Nov. 30, 1990) (affirming district court’s dismissal of Bivens claims against

Federal Correctional Institute on ground of sovereign immunity). 

II.

Five prisoners incarcerated at FCI-Milan are also named as additional plaintiffs. 

However, Plaintiff Williams is the only plaintiff to have signed the complaint and the

only plaintiff who submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The purported

additional plaintiffs have not signed the complaint as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. In

addition, the allegations in the complaint are written in the singular first person, rather

than in the plural first person. Plaintiff Williams provides no indication that the

additional plaintiffs have given permission or have any knowledge that a complaint has

purportedly been filed on their behalf. As discussed above, the Court has determined that

this complaint is subject to summary dismissal because monetary relief is sought from

defendants who are immune from such relief. If the five additional plaintiffs had no

knowledge of this litigation and did not accede to it, the Court finds that it would be

unjust for the dismissal of this case to count as a “strike” against them under 28 U.S.C. §

1915(g). Therefore, the dismissal as to plaintiffs Randle, Robinson, Green, McDew, and

Petties is without prejudice. 

III.

2:09-cv-12707-PJD-VMM Doc # 4 Filed 08/04/09 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 16
4

The Court concludes that the complaint seeks relief from defendants who are

immune from relief. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the complaint is DISMISSED. The

dismissal is WITH PREJUDICE as to Plaintiff Howard V. Williams and WITHOUT

PREJUDICE as to the remaining Plaintiffs. 

A judgment consistent with this opinion shall issue.

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies To:

Howard Williams Roy Robinson Shawn McDew 

52528060 31801039 52527060 

FCI Milan FCI Milan FCI Milan

Inmate Mail/Parcels Inmate Mail/Parcels Inmate Mail/Parcels

P.O. Box 1000 P.O. Box 1000 P.O. Box 1000

Milan, MI 48160 Milan, MI 48160 Milan, MI 48160

Antonial Randle David Green Charles Petties 

14272026 01665041 55210060 

FCI Milan FCI Milan FCI Milan

Inmate Mail/Parcels Inmate Mail/Parcels Inmate Mail/Parcels

P.O. Box 1000 P.O. Box 1000 P.O. Box 1000

Milan, MI 48160 Milan, MI 48160 Milan, MI 48160

2:09-cv-12707-PJD-VMM Doc # 4 Filed 08/04/09 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 17