Summary
This is a screening order issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan regarding a pro se prisoner’s civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court granted the plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint while denying his requests for appointed counsel. Following statutory screening requirements, the court dismissed several defendants and numerous claims, including those based on the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, the Federal Tort Claims Act, and various federal criminal statutes. The court retained only the plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claims against two specific defendants and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiff stated a plausible §1983 claim for First Amendment retaliation.
- Whether plaintiff stated a claim under the Fifth Amendment due process clause.
- Whether plaintiff may assert claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
- Whether plaintiff may assert claims under various federal criminal statutes.
- Whether plaintiff's Fifth Amendment Takings claim is viable.
- Whether plaintiff's Equal Protection claim is viable.
- Whether plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim is viable.
- Whether plaintiff's due process claim under state law is viable.
- Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.
Holdings
- The claim is sufficiently pleaded and may proceed past the screening stage.
- Those claims are dismissed for failure to allege sufficient retaliation.
- Dismissed because the Fifth Amendment applies only to the federal government.
- Dismissed because the United States is the only proper defendant under the FTCA.
- Dismissed because criminal statutes do not create private causes of action.
- Dismissed because plaintiff failed to allege a public use taking.
- Dismissed because plaintiff failed to allege intentional disparate treatment.
- Dismissed because the alleged loss of property does not rise to cruel and unusual punishment.
- Dismissed because adequate state post‑deprivation remedies exist.
- Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction; state‑law claims dismissed without prejudice.
Key quotations
“A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, ‘to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” (at 1)
Factual background
While incarcerated at Saginaw Correctional Facility, plaintiff ordered five books that were rejected as impermissible under MDOC policy. An administrative hearing upheld the rejection; subsequently, the mailroom staff destroyed the books. Plaintiff alleged retaliation, due process violations, and constitutional claims related to the destruction and alleged overcharges for postage.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed a pro se §1983 complaint in March 2024. The court screened the complaint under the PLRA and dismissed all claims except those supported by the amended complaint, granting the motion to amend and denying counsel appointments.