Opinion ID: 617595
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: We review the grant of a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) de novo. Pulte Homes, Inc. v. Laborers’ Int’l Union of N. Am., 648 F.3d 295 (6th Cir. 2011). Furthermore, we may “affirm the district court’s dismissal of a plaintiff's claims on any grounds, including grounds not relied upon by the district court.” Hensley Mfg. v. ProPride Inc., 579 F.3d 603, 609 (6th Cir. 2009). In determining whether a party has failed to state a claim, we construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and accept all factual allegations as true. Paige v. Coyner, 614 F.3d 273, 277 (6th Cir. 2010). In order to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint “need contain only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d No. 09-1418 Hanner v. City of Dearborn Heights et el. Page 6 929 (2007) (internal quotations omitted)). Additionally, the pleadings of pro se plaintiffs like Hanner are liberally construed and held to a less stringent standard. Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 712 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21, 92 S. Ct. 594, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1972)). The district court based its dismissal of Hanner’s complaint on a series of holdings. First, the court concluded that as a threshold matter, all of Hanner’s constitutional claims, except his Eighth Amendment claim, were barred by the favorable termination rule of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 129 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1994). Second, the court held in the alternative that even if Heck did not bar Hanner’s claims, he had failed to state his Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims. The district court also held that several defendants enjoyed various forms of immunity, including judicial immunity, quasi-judicial immunity, or sovereign immunity. Hanner had failed to state any claims against the City of Dearborn Heights in that he did not plead the existence of a municipal policy or custom to show Monell liability. Additionally, the complaint failed to state a claim as to the individual defendants such as the Mayor of Dearborn Heights and the court administrator because Hanner did not plead that these individuals were personally involved in the acts against him. Having dismissed Hanner’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims on these alternative grounds, the district court finally concluded that Hanner failed to state a claim for the deprivation of his Eighth Amendment rights based on Hanner’s allegation that the officer who locked him up took his crutch away from him. We will consider each of Hanner’s assignments of error in turn. No. 09-1418 Hanner v. City of Dearborn Heights et el. Page 7