Click Back Button to Return to Publication
KENNETH ALAN FRAZIER, also known as K. Al Frazier, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. STATE OF MICHIGAN, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 02-1160
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
July 22, 2002, Filed
NOTICE:
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR
FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION. SIXTH CIRCUIT RULE 28(g) LIMITS CITATION TO SPECIFIC
SITUATIONS. PLEASE SEE RULE 28(g) BEFORE CITING IN A PROCEEDING IN A COURT IN
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. IF CITED, A COPY MUST BE SERVED ON OTHER PARTIES AND THE
COURT. THIS NOTICE IS TO BE PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED IF THIS DECISION IS
REPRODUCED.
Before: MERRITT and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges; WEBER, District Judge. *
* The Honorable Herman J.
Weber, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting
by designation.
Kenneth Alan Frazier, also known
as K. Al Frazier, a Michigan prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals a district
court judgment dismissing his civil action filed pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-34, and 42 U.S.C. §§
1981, 1983, 1985(3), 1986, and 1988. This case has been referred to a
panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(1), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon
examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed.
Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).
On October 11, 2001, Frazier
filed a complaint against the state of Michigan; John Engler, governor of the
state of Michigan; and the following individuals: Bill Martin, Dan Bolden, Gil
Bettinger, Richard B. Stapleton, Thomas Patten, Michael J. Crowley, George M.
Pennell, Dr. Oh Chung Do, Practioner P. Koskiniemi, "Psych" R.
Marcenino, "Psych" Nannbery, Dr. Richard D. Shaul, Darlene Edlund,
William Luetzow, Sharon Wright, Beth Smith, "RUO" Heally,
"RUO" Jack Jackola, "RUO" Mary Peterson, and
"RUO" Edward Anderson. The complaint did not indicate the defendants'
positions or the capacities in which the defendants were sued. Although the
complaint stated that such information was included in the "attached
notice pleadings . . . and attached exhibits in support," no such
documents were attached to the complaint.
Frazier's complaint, consisting
of three paragraphs in its entirety, alleged in a conclusory manner that he has
been subjected to a wide variety of unconstitutional conditions of confinement
and deprived of his federal rights during his incarceration. The complaint also
referred the court to "attached notice pleadings for full detailed
disclosure," however such "notice pleadings" were not attached
to the complaint.
The
district court granted Frazier's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Despite
Frazier's failure to demonstrate exhaustion of his administrative remedies, the
district court subsequently dismissed the complaint for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e), 1915A,
and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). Frazier's Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or
amend the judgment was denied by the district court. Frazier has filed a timely
appeal.
We
review de novo a district court's judgment dismissing a suit for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted under §§ 1915(e)(2) and
1915A(b). Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d
863, 867 (6th Cir. 2000). "Dismissal of a complaint for the failure to
state a claim on which relief may be granted is appropriate only if it appears
beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his
claim that would entitle him to relief." Id. [*764] We also review de novo
a district court's judgment dismissing a prisoner's complaint under §
1997e(c). Ruiz v. United States, 160
F.3d 273, 275 (5th Cir. 1998).
A complaint must contain
"'either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material
elements to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory.'" Scheid
v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434, 436 (6th Cir. 1988) (quoting Car
Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 745 F.2d 1101, 1106 (7th Cir. 1984)). The
court is not required to accept non-specific factual allegations and inferences
or unwarranted legal conclusions. See
Dellis v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 257 F.3d 508, 511 (6th Cir. 2001); Lillard
v. Shelby County Bd. of Educ., 76 F.3d 716, 726 (6th Cir. 1996); Morgan v.
Church's Fried Chicken, 829 F.2d 10, 12 (6th Cir. 1987); Chapman v. City of
Detroit, 808 F.2d 459, 465 (6th Cir.
1986); Smith v. Rose, 760 F.2d 102, 106 (6th Cir. 1985). Furthermore, a
complaint must allege that the defendants were personally involved in the
alleged deprivation of federal rights. Hall v. United States, 704 F.2d 246, 251
(6th Cir. 1983).
Upon review, we conclude that
Frazier's complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted
and was properly dismissed by the district court. Frazier's complaint contained
no specific facts in support of his conclusory allegations that the defendants
violated his constitutional and statutory rights. Moreover, Frazier failed to
allege with any degree of specificity which of the named defendants were
personally involved in or responsible for each of the alleged violations of his
federal rights. Thus, even under the most liberal construction, Frazier's
complaint did not state a claim for relief. The arguments asserted by Frazier
in his appellate brief do not compel a different result.
Accordingly, the district court's judgment is affirmed. Rule
34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.