Opinion
Case No. 15-11451
01-04-2017
MARITA TURNER, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et. al., Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING ACTION
Before the court is Plaintiff Marita Turner's application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). (Dkt. # 4.) Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in the Huron Valley Complex in Ypsilanti, Michigan. (Dt. # 1.) In her complaint, Plaintiff seeks writs of mandamus ordering an unspecified district court to subpoena various records allegedly kept by various Defendants. (Id.) Though not discussed by Plaintiff, her request is apparently related to prior litigation in which Plaintiff alleged that various prison officials violated her Eighth Amendment rights by tampering with her food and subsequently denying her necessary medical treatment. See Turner v. Callington, Case No. 13-12744, 2014 WL 2764172 (E.D. Mich. April 18, 2014) (Cleland, J.)
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss any portion of the complaint that is (i) frivolous or malicious, (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (iii) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. A complaint is "frivolous" if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must provide sufficient facts to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). "The plausibility standard is not akin to a 'probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that defendant has acted unlawfully." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
Notwithstanding Plaintiff's numerous citations to Michigan statutes and the Michigan Court Rules, federal district courts are unequivocally barred from issuing writs of mandamus by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 81(b). Further, Plaintiff's complaint provides no grounds on which this court may issue the requested subpoenas or otherwise order the production of documents. In particular, Plaintiff's complaint does not identify a legal proceeding pending in this court to which the requested records would be relevant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); 45(a)(1)(A)(ii).
Plaintiff's complaint asserts no claim for damages or declaratory or injunctive relief. Neither does it allege that Plaintiff has a legal entitlement to the records. It states only that the records "will substantiate her claims[.]" (Dkt. # 1, Pg. Id 3.) But Plaintiff's prior allegations regarding her treatment while in custody are not presently in front of this court, and her complaint makes only passing reference to them. Plaintiff's complaint lacks an arguable basis in law and fails to state a claim upon which the requested, or similar, relief may be granted. As a result, it must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. # 4) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for frivolity and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: January 4, 2017 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record on this date, January 4, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Shawna C. Burns
Case Manager Generalist
(810) 984-2056 C:\Users\burnss\AppData\Local\Temp\notes5524D1\15-11451.TURNER.grant.ifp.summary.dimsiss.TLH.wpd