SHANNON v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, (W.D.Mich. 2000)

ENSLEN, Chief Judge

In accordance with the opinion filed this date:

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's action be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), § 1915A, and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c), because the Michigan Department of Corrections is immune from suit under § 1983.

For the same reasons that the court dismisses the action, the court discerns no good-faith basis for an appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(3); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 611 (6th Cir. 1997).

This is a dismissal as described by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court has granted plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, PUB. L. No. 104-134, 110 STAT.1321 (1996) ("PLRA"), the court is required to dismiss any prisoner action brought under federal law if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c); 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2), 1915A. The court must read plaintiff's pro se complaint indulgently, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and accept plaintiff's allegations as true, unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Demon v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). Applying these standards, the court will dismiss plaintiff's complaint because the Michigan Department of Corrections is immune from suit under § 1983.

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in the Chippewa Correctional Facility. In his pro se complaint, he sues the Michigan Department of Corrections.

The body of plaintiff's complaint is a rambling narrative that fails to set forth specific legal claims or a specific prayer for relief. The complaint focuses primarily on the fact that plaintiff has not received proper accommodation for his degenerative eye disease. Beginning in 1994, plaintiff sought to learn Braille due to his worsening sight, but the various institutions in which he has been incarcerated have failed to cooperate in securing the necessary equipment and instruction. Plaintiff also claims that while he was incarcerated in the Lakeland Correctional Facility in 1997, he was denied "assistance" by Warden Howes because he did not have a disability. In addition, plaintiff contends that in 1998, he was given a porter job for sixty days at the Parnall Correctional Facility where he was incarcerated. He was sent to porter school, but could not read the fine print. Plaintiff has allegedly been denied employment since that time.

Plaintiff states that he was transferred to the Brooks Correctional Facility in September, 1999. Plaintiff contends that even though he had a medical detail, the warden denied his requests for an "assistant" because she wants the prisoners in her facility to be independent. According to plaintiff, he was then given a six month medical lay-in and has not been permitted to leave his unit, except to go to health services. Plaintiff also claims that Sergeant Mikkleson confiscated and broke a telescope that was given to plaintiff by the D.L. Waters Hospital Low Vision Aid Clinic. Plaintiff further claims that his talking book tape player was improperly confiscated as contraband while he was incarcerated in the Chippewa Correctional Facility.

The Michigan Department of Corrections is the sole defendant named in this action. Regardless of the form of relief requested, the states and their departments are immune under the Eleventh Amendment from suit in the federal courts, if the state has not waived immunity and Congress has not expressly abrogated Eleventh Amendment immunity by statute. See Pennhurst State School Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 98-101 (1984); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978); O'Hara v. Wigginton, 24 F.3d 823, 826 (6th Cir. 1993). Congress has not expressly abrogated Eleventh Amendment immunity by statute, Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 341 (1979), and the State of Michigan has not consented to civil rights suits in federal court. Abick v. Michigan, 803 F.2d 874, 877 (6th Cir. 1986). In numerous unpublished opinions, the Sixth Circuit has specifically held that the Michigan Department of Corrections is absolutely immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. See, e.g., Erdman v. Michigan Dep't of Corr., No. 94-2109, 1995 WL 150341, at *1 (6th Cir. April 5, 1995); Cullens v. Bemis, No. 9201582, 1992 WL 337688, at *1 (6th Cir. Nov. 18, 1992); Adams v Michigan Dep't of Corr., No. 86-1803, 1987 WL 36006, at * 1 (6th Cir. May 7, 1987). Therefore, plaintiff may not maintain an action against the Michigan Department of Corrections.

Having conducted the review now required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the court determines that plaintiff's action will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), 1915A(b); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c) because the Michigan Department of Corrections is immune from suit under § 1983.

The court must next decide whether an appeal of this action would be in good faith within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 611 (6th Cir. 1997). For the same reasons that the court dismisses the action, the court discerns no good-faith basis for an appeal. Should plaintiff appeal this decision, the court will assess the $105 appellate filing fee pursuant to § 1915(b)(1), see McGore, 114 F.3d at 610-11, unless plaintiff is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis, e.g., by the "three-strikes" rule of § 1915(g). If he is barred, he will be required to pay the $105 appellate filing fee in one lump sum. This is a dismissal as described by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). A judgment consistent with this opinion will be entered.