Opinion
Case No. 2:99cv130.
Dated: October 22, 1999.
JUDGMENT
For the reasons set forth in the Court's accompanying opinion,
IT IS ORDERED that the motions to dismiss by the following defendants are GRANTED:
(docket #13) Zimmerman Reed law firm and all partners and associates;
(docket #31) State of Michigan, Engler, Posthumus, Granholm, Kelley, Wheatley, Center for Forensic Psychiatry, Michigan Department of Community Health, Reynolds, Michigan Department of State Police, Helmila, Johnston, Bureau of Workers Disability Compensation, Boucher, and Michigan Department of Civil Rights;
(docket #39) United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO CLC;
(docket #50) Marquette County, Marquette County jail, Marquette County Sheriff's Department, Patricia Micklow, Sharon M. Burns, Cindy Boyer, Deputy Dean Rushford, Sheriff Michael Lovelace, City of Ishpeming, Ishpeming Police Department;
(docket #101) Timothy Greeley, United States Magistrate Judge, Federal Government, Bill Clinton, President, Hillary Clinton, Kenneth Starr, Janet Reno, Henry Hyde, Carl Levin, United States Department of Labor; United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation;
(docket #106) Judge Thomas Solka;
(docket #126) Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. and United Healthcare Ins. Co.;
(docket #137) Aetna Life Insurance Companies; and
(docket #150) Mike O'Meara and Sedgwick James, Inc.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motions to dismiss by the following objectors are GRANTED:
(docket #5) Lester Owens, D.O.;
(docket #7) Attorney Paul Williams of the law firm of Williams, Klukowski, Fotieo Szczytko on behalf of himself and his partners and associates;
(docket #9) Joseph H. Perra, M.D. and Twin Cities Spine Center(f/k/a Minnesota Spine Center);
(docket #'s 11, 38, 144) Mayo Clinic, J. W. Worthington and St. Mary Hospital;
(docket #23) Michigan Protection and Child Advocacy Service, Inc.;
(docket #26) William F. Ferns on behalf of himself and his partners and associates at Osstyn, Bays, Ferns Quinnell;
(docket #34) James A. Taren, M.D. and University of Michigan;
(docket #45) Michigan Board of Medicine and Health Regulatory Division;
(docket #47) American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. and Paramount Pictures;
(docket #53) Roger W. Kangas on behalf of himself and the partners and associates at Casselman Kangas, P.C.;
(docket #58) Warren J. Roberts, M.D.;
(docket #63) Marquette Mining Journal;
(docket #65, 104)J. Michael Coyne, M.D., James H. Mering III, M.D., Prayad Chayapruks, M.D.;
(docket #67) Mark Peter Stevens;
(docket #72) Gregory Graziano, M.D.;
(docket #74) Center for Individual Rights;
(docket #75) Ameritech;
(docket #80) Bell Memorial Hospital, Debbie Carlson, Raymond A. Wood, Dr. Gail P. Brayden, Cardiology Associates of the U.P., P.C., Dr. Michael Misna, Dr. Harold Hildebrandt, Dr. James Tobin, Doug Carter;
(docket #85) Harpo Productions, Inc. and Oprah Winfrey;
(docket #87) Dominic S. Chu, M.D.;
(docket #91) Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility;
(docket #92) Veterinarian Jean Wilcox;
(docket #93) Kevin Koch;
(docket #95) American of Marquette;
(docket #97) Michigan Department of Commerce;
(docket #100) CBS Broadcasting, Inc.;
(docket #109) Folksmire, Solka Stenton, P.C.;
(docket #112) Thomas Knuff, M.D.;
(docket #115) Joseph M. Cools, M.D.;
(docket #118) American Civil Liberties Union;
(docket #127) Legal Services of Northern Michigan, Inc.;
(docket #129) Federal Broadcasting, Inc.;
(docket #134) Wilderness Sports, Inc.;
(docket #139) Marquette Medical-Dental Center Corporation (d/b/a Upper Peninsula Medical Center);
(docket #140) Newsweek, Inc.;
(docket #141) Margaret Turner, Marquette General ER, T. Scott Emerson, M.D., David Luoma, M.D., John Lehtinen, M.D., Lyle Vanderscheat, M.D., Steve Early, M.D., James Addison, M.D., Herman VonGreiff, M.D., Kent Koehn, M.D., Pratp Gupta, M.D., Stress Depression Unit of Marquette General Hospital, Marquette General Pharmacy;
(docket #148) Wilderness Sports, Inc.; and
(docket #149) Richmond Township Police and Kurt Jandron.
Judgment is hereby entered in favor of these objectors and defendants upon all plaintiffs' claims.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' remaining claims against named defendants and objectors are DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
IT IF FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for a more definite statement and motion to strike of Warren J. Roberts, M.D. (docket #'s 56, 57) are DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motions for sanctions (docket #'s 5, 11, 38) are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall henceforth return any motion or pleading submitted by a person served with process but not named as a party, accompanying such submission with a copy of this opinion and judgment.
OPINION
This is a civil action originally filed in Marquette County Circuit Court. The complaint identified the plaintiffs as Ronald Thorne, Sandy Thorne, Dillon Thorne and Rylee Thorne, Plaintiffs labeled their 36-page handwritten complaint as "`Conspiracy' `Etc.'" The matter is before the Court on numerous motions to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a claim. To the extent the complaint is intelligible, it attempts to challenge the decision of defendant Patricia Micklow, a state district judge, to refer plaintiff Ronald Thorne to the State Forensic Center in Ann Arbor to determine his competency to stand trial on state criminal charges. From plaintiffs' allegations, it appears that Judge Micklow found that Ronald Thorne, was not competent to stand trial. (Complaint, pp. 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14, 22). Plaintiffs assert a conspiracy of a "magnitude never seen before in this country or the world," involving as co-conspirators persons ranging from the President of the United States down to the veterinarian treating Thorne family pets. Plaintiffs seek $500 million in damages. (Complaint, pp. 13, 32).
The Center for Forensic Psychiatry is an agency of the Michigan Department of Community Health. The Center has two main functions. First, it is a 210-bed in-patient facility for individuals who have been declared not guilty by reason of insanity or incompetent to stand trial, and who pose high security risks. Second, it is a diagnostic facility, evaluating persons for the Michigan judiciary on an outpatient basis for insanity or competency to stand trial. MICH. COMP. LAWS §§ 330.1128, 330.2001a-330.2006a, 330.2020-330.2044.
Plaintiff Ronald Thorne also asks this Court to order his release from the State Forensic Center and to transfer him to a facility closer to his home in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. (Complaint, p. 14).
The pro se complaint named forty-five defendants:
1. Judge Patricia Micklow, 96th Judicial District Court;
2. Judge Tom Solka, 25th Judicial Circuit;
3. Marquette County;
4. Marquette County Jail;
5. Marquette County Sheriff's Department;
6. Sharon M. Burns, Magistrate, 96th Judicial District Court;
7. Timothy Greeley, United States Magistrate Judge;
8. State of Michigan;
9. Federal Government;
10. Bill Clinton, President of the United States;
11. Hillary Clinton;
12. Kenneth Starr, Independent Counsel;
13. Janet Reno, Attorney General of the United States;
14. Senator Henry Hyde;
15. Mike Prusi;
16. John M. Engler, Governor, State of Michigan;
17. Nanette Reynolds;
18. Jennifer M. Granholm, Attorney General, State of Michigan;
19. David Anthony;
20. Senator Carl Levin;
21. Don Koivisto;
22. United States Department of Labor;
23. Cleveland Cliffs Inc.;
24. Sedgwick James, Inc.;
25. Mike O'Meara;
26. Aetna Insurance Co.;
27. Metropolitan Insurance Co.;
28. Penn General Insurance Co.;
29. United Health Care;
30. Marquette General Hospital;
31. Marquette Fair Street Clinic;
32. University of Michigan Hospitals;
33. Joseph Levey;
34. Attorney David Poindexter;
35. Attorney Dan Wisti and his law firm Wisti Wisti;
36. Zimmerman Reed law firm;
37. Michigan Department of Justice;
38. United States Department of Justice;
39. Federal Bureau of Investigation;
40. United Steelworkers of America;
41. AFL-CIO;
42. University of Michigan Health Center;
43. Robbie Lammi;
44. William Lammi; and
45. Belemere Wendt.
The federal government defendants removed this action to federal court on July 13, 1999. (docket # 1).
Inexplicably, prior to removal of this case from state court, the Marquette County Circuit Court Clerk provided the pro se plaintiffs with more than 160 summons forms, well in excess of the number of named defendants. Plaintiffs mailed these summonses to a stunning number of non-parties, referred to herein as objectors:
1. James R. Dietz;
2. Richmond Township Police;
3. Kurt Jandron;
4. Lester Owens, M.D.;
5. Attorney Paul Williams and the law firm of Williams, Klukowski, Fotieo Szczytko, P.C.;
6. Joseph H. Perra, M.D.;
7. Twin Cities Spine Center;
8. Dominic S. Chu, M.D.;
9. Mayo Clinic;
10. J. W. Worthington;
11. St. Mary's Hospital;
12. Upper Penninsula Sports Medicine Therapy Center;
13. James F. Tobin, Jr., M.D.;
14. Lieutenant Governor Richard Posthumus;
15. Former Michigan Attorney General Frank Kelley;
16. Center for Forensic Psychiatry;
17. Michigan Department of Civil Rights, Nanette Lee, Director;
18. Michigan State Police;
19. Michigan Department of Community Health;
20. Jack Wheatly, Director, Michigan Unemployment Agency;
21. America Online Incorporated;
22. Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service, Inc.;
23. Attorney William B. Ferns and the law firm of Osstyn, Bays, Ferns Quinnell;
24. Jerry Boucher, Mediator, Michigan Bureau of Workers Disability Compensation;
25. Detective Sergeant Wally Helmila, Michigan State Police;
26. Sergeant Todd Johnston, Michigan State Police;
27. Bureau of Workers Disability Compensation;
28. James A. Taren, M.D.;
29. Wilderness Sports, Inc.;
30. J. Michael Coyne, M.D.;
31. Prayad Chayapruks, M.D.;
32. James Mering, M.D.;
33. Michigan Board of Medicine and Health Regulatory Division;
34. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.;
35. Paramount Pictures Corporation;
36. Sheriff Michael Lovelace;
37. Cindy Boyer;
38. Deputy Dean Rushford;
39. City of Ishpeming;
40. Ishpeming Police Department;
41. Roger W. Kangas;
42. Warren J. Roberts, M.D.;
43. Marquette Mining Journal;
44. Mark Stevens;
45. Doctor Gregory Graziano;
46. Ameritech;
47. Kevin W. Koch;
48. Officemax Inc.;
49. Francis A. Bell Memorial Hospital;
50. Debbie Carlson;
51. Raymond Wood;
52. Gail Brayden;
53. Cardiology Associates of the Upper Peninsula, Inc.;
54. Dr. Michael Misna;
55. Dr. Harold Hildebrand;
56. Doug Carter;
57. Harpo Productions, Inc.;
58. Oprah Winfrey;
59. Fosmire, Solka Stenton, P.C.;
60. Jean Wilcox;
61. Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility,
62. American of Marquette;
63. Michigan Department of Commerce;
64. CBS Broadcasting, Inc.;
65. Marquette City Police Department;
66. Thomas Knuff, M.D.;
67. Joseph M. Cools, M.D.;
68. American Civil Liberties Union;
69. Margaret Turner;
70. T. Scott Emerson, M.D.;
71. Lyle Vanderscheat, M.D.;
72. David Luoma, M.D.;
73. John Lehtinen, M.D.;
74. Steve Early;
75. James Addison, M.D.;
76. Herman Vongreiff, M.D.;
77. Kent Koehn, M.D.;
78. Pratp Gupta, M.D.;
79. Stress Depression Unit of Marquette General Hospital;
80. Legal Services of Northern Michigan, Inc.;
81. Federal Broadcasting, Inc.;
82. Marquette General Pharmacy;
83. Newsweek Inc.;
84. Meryl Icove, Director of Disabilities Issues Task Force, FCC;
85. Nicholas J. Walsh, FBI Special Agent;
86. James Dietz, FBI Chief Division Counsel, Detroit;
87. Congressman Bart Stupak, 1st Congressional District of Michigan;
88. Congressman Chris Cannon, 3rd Congressional District of Utah;
89. Congressman Steve Chabot, 1st Congressional District of Ohio;
90. Congressman James Sensenbrenner, 9th Congressional District of Wisconsin;
91. Congressman Ed Bryant, 7th Congressional District of Tennessee;
92. Congressman Charles T. Canady, 12th Congressional District of Florida;
93. Congressman George W. Gecks, 17th Congressional district of Pennsylvania;
94. Congressman Stephen E. Buyer, 5th Congressional District of Indiana;
95. Congressman Asa Hutchinson, 3rd Congressional District of Arkansas;
96. Congressman Bill McCullum, 8th Congressional District of Florida;
97. Congressman James E. Rogan, 27th Congressional District of California;
98. James B. Burns, former United States Attorney, Chicago, IL;
99. Gerald V. Hogen;
100. Barry F. Kowalski;
101. Jessica Ginsburg;
102. Albert N. Moskawitz;
103. John M. Mott;
104. Karla Babinski;
105. Tamara Miller;
106. Betsy L. Pond, Executive Office of the United States Attorney General;
107. Al Gore, Vice President of the United States;
108. United States Senator Spencer Abraham;
109. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission;
110. Food and Drug Administration;
111. Chief Postal inspector, United States Postal Service;
112. Gateway 2000;
113. Town Hall;
114. Frontiers of Freedom Institute;
115. American Civil Liberties Union;
116. The Rutherford Institute;
117. Hustler Magazine;
118. Larry Flint;
119. Leeza;
120. WE-Magazine;
121. AT T;
122. Radio Shack; and
123. Walmart.
Applicable Standard
The standards applicable to a motion to dismiss are well settled.
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint may be dismissed only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations of the complaint. See Ludwig v. Board of Trustees, 123 F.3d 404, 408 (6th Cir. 1997); Morgan v. Church's Fried Chicken, 829 F.2d 10, 12 (6th Cir. 1987). The Court must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, accept all factual allegations as true, and determine whether it is established beyond a doubt that the plaintiffs can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief Columbia Natural Resources, Inc. v. Tatum, 58 F.3d 1101, 1109 (6th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1041 (1996); Jones v. City of Carlisle, 3 F.3d 945, 947 (6th Cir. 1993) (citing cases), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1177 (1994).
While this standard is decidedly liberal, it requires more than the bare assertion of legal conclusions. 58 F.3d at 1109 The Court need not accept as true legal conclusions or unwarranted factual inferences. Murphy v. Sofamor Danek Group, Inc. (In re Sofamor), 123 F.3d 394, 400 (6th Cir. 1997) (quoting Morgan, 829 F.2d at 12). "In practice, a complaint must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory.'" Allard v. Weitzman (In re DeLorean Motor Co.), 991 F.2d 1236, 1240 (6th Cir. 1993) (quoting Car Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 745 F.2d 1101, 1106 (7th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1054 (1985)). Further, as plaintiffs are proceeding pro se, the complaint must be read liberally and is not held to the standard applicable to complaints drafted by trained legal counsel. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). Applying these standards, the Court will grant all the motions to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a claim, and will dismiss the remainder of the action for lack of jurisdiction.
Discussion 1. Motions to Dismiss by Objectors
The matter is now before the Court upon the following motions to dismiss by objectors, who have been served with process but not named in the complaint:
(docket #5) Lester Owens, D.O.;
(docket #7) Attorney Paul Williams of the law firm of Williams, Klukowski, Fotieo Szczytko on behalf of himself and his partners and associates;
(docket #9) Joseph H. Perra, M.D. and Twin Cities Spine Center(f/k/a Minnesota Spine Center);
(docket #'s 11, 38, 144) Mayo Clinic, J. W. Worthington and St. Mary Hospital;
(docket #23) Michigan Protection and Child Advocacy Service, Inc.;
(docket #26) William F. Ferns on behalf of himself and his partners and associates at Osstyn, Bays, Ferns Quinnell;
(docket #34) James A. Taren, M.D. and University of Michigan;
(docket #45) Michigan Board of Medicine and Health Regulatory Division;
(docket #47) American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. and Paramount Pictures;
(docket #53) Roger W. Kangas on behalf of himself and the partners and associates at Casselman Kangas, P.C.;
(docket #58) Warren J. Roberts, M.D.;
(docket #63) Marquette Mining Journal;
(docket #65, 104) J. Michael Coyne, M.D., James H. Mering III, M.D., Prayad Chayapruks, M.D.;
(docket #67) Mark Peter Stevens;
(docket #72) Gregory Graziano, M.D.;
(docket #74) Center for Individual Rights;
(docket #75) Ameritech;
(docket #80) Bell Memorial Hospital, Debbie Carlson, Raymond A. Wood, Dr. Gail P. Brayden, Cardiology Associates of the U.P., P.C., Dr. Michael Misna, Dr. Harold Hildebrandt, Dr. James Tobin, Doug Carter;
(docket #85) Harpo Productions, Inc. and Oprah Winfrey;
(docket #87) Dominic S. Chu, M.D.;
(docket #91) Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility;
(docket #92) Veterinarian Jean Wilcox;
(docket #93) Kevin Koch;
(docket #95) American of Marquette;
(docket #97) Michigan Department of Commerce;
(docket #100) CBS Broadcasting, Inc.;
(docket #109) Folksmire, Solka Stenton, P.C.;
(docket #112) Thomas Knuff, M.D.;
(docket #115) Joseph M. Cools, M.D.;
(docket #118) American Civil Liberties Union;
(docket #127) Legal Services of Northern Michigan, Inc.;
(docket #129) Federal Broadcasting, Inc.;
(docket #134) Wilderness Sports, Inc.;
(docket #139) Marquette Medical-Dental Center Corporation (d/b/a Upper Peninsula Medical Center);
(docket #140) Newsweek, Inc.;
(docket #141) Margaret Turner, Marquette General ER, T. Scott Emerson, M.D., David Luoma, M.D., John Lehtinen, M.D., Lyle Vanderscheat, M.D., Steve Early, M.D., James Addison, M.D., Herman VonGreiff, M.D., Kent Koehn, M.D., Pratp Gupta, M.D., Stress Depression Unit of Marquette General Hospital, Marquette General Pharmacy;
(docket #148) Wilderness Sports, Inc.; and
(docket #149) Richmond Township Police and Kurt Jandron.
The Court has repeatedly advised plaintiffs of their opportunity to respond to the motions to dismiss. (docket #'s 78, 82, 88, 110, 124). Plaintiffs have elected not to file a response and have filed nothing with this Court since the removal of the case from state court.
None of the objectors were named defendants in plaintiffs' lawsuit, nor does the body of the complaint make any substantive objection against them. It was an abuse of process for the Marquette County Clerk to issue summonses against the parties, allowing plaintiffs to force nonparties to respond to plaintiffs' complaint. With an apology from this Court for the inconvenience caused by the gross error in judgment of the Marquette County Circuit Court Clerk in issuing the summonses against them, the Court will grant their motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. It is well settled that a complaint must make factual allegations of a substantive nature against any party named as a defendant. The mere listing of a person in the caption, without substantive allegations in the body of the complaint, is insufficient and renders the action frivolous. See Potter v. Clark, 497 F.2d 1206, 1207 (7th Cir. 1974); Eckford-El v. Toombs, 760 F. Supp. 1267, 1272-73 (W.D.Mich. 1991). A fortiori, service of process against person who are nowhere mentioned in the complaint, not even the caption, is a patent abuse of process.
The Court must go on to dismiss sua sponte plaintiffs' claims against all the remaining objectors because the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. The federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and plaintiff has the burden of proving the Court's jurisdiction. Horizon Healthcare, 160 F.3d 326, 329 (6th Cir. 1998). Even where subject matter jurisdiction its is not raised by parties, the Court must consider the issue sua sponte. See Norris v. Schotten, 146 F.3d 314, 324 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 348 (1998); see also Mixon v. Ohio, No. 98-3368, ___ F.3d. ___, 1999 WL 781802, at *4 (6th Cir. Sept. 30, 1999); McLaughlin v. Cotner, No. 98-3231, ___ F.3d ___, 1999 WL 781807, at *1 (6th Cir. Sept. 30, 1999). Plaintiffs have not pleaded facts establishing diversity jurisdiction, nor could they establish the complete diversity required, given that so many of the named objectors are Michigan residents. Plaintiffs also fail to plead sufficient facts to establish any claim based upon federal question jurisdiction.
2. Motions to Dismiss by Defendants
The following named defendants have filed motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted:
(docket #13) Zimmerman Reed law firm and all partners and associates;
(docket #26) William B. Ferns on behalf of himself and the law firm of Osstyn, Bays, Ferns Quinnell;
(docket #31) State of Michigan, Engler, Posthumus, Granholm, Kelley, Wheatley, Center for Forensic Psychiatry, Michigan Department of Community Health, Reynolds, Michigan Department of State Police, Helmila, Johnston, Bureau of Workers Disability Compensation, Boucher, and Michigan Department of Civil Rights;
(docket #39) United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC;
(docket #50) Marquette County, Marquette County jail, Marquette County Sheriff's Department, Patricia Micklow, Sharon M. Burns, Cindy Boyer, Deputy Dean Rushford, Sheriff Michael Lovelace, City of Ishpeming, Ishpeming Police Department;
(docket #101) Timothy Greeley, United States Magistrate Judge, Federal Government, Bill Clinton, President, Hillary Clinton, Kenneth Starr, Janet Reno, Henry Hyde, Carl Levin, United States Department of Labor; United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation;
(docket #106) Judge Thomas Solka;
(docket #126) Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. and United Healthcare Ins. Co.;
(docket #137) Aetna Life Insurance Companies; and
(docket #150) Mike O'Mera and Sedgwick James, Inc. Defendants' motions have highlighted numerous fatal flaws in plaintiffs' complaint. Discussion of a few of these defects will suffice for purposes of this opinion.
Plaintiffs' vague and conclusory allegations of conspiracy unsupported by material facts are insufficient to state a claim under section 1983. See Gutierrez v. Lynch, 826 F.2d 1534, 1538 (6th Cir. 1987); see also Holloway v. Ohio, 179 F.3d 431, 446 (6th Cir. 1999).
The complaint contains absolutely no substantive allegations of any act or omission by a number of defendants named in the caption. A pro se complaint that merely names persons as defendants without alleging specific conduct against them is subject to summary dismissal as frivolous. See Potter v. Clark, 497 F.2d 1206, 1207 (7th Cir. 1994); Stone-El v. Sheehan, 914 F. Supp. 202, 205 n. 2 (N.D.Ill. 1995); Eckford-El v. Toombs, 760 F. Supp. at 1272-73; see also Hahn v. Star Bank, No. 98-3680, ___ F.3d ___, 1999 WL 681702, at *5 (6th Cir. Sept. 2, 1999). Plaintiffs' complaint also mentions medical malpractice, professional malpractice, negligence, torts, libel, slander, defamation, RICO violations, discrimination, breach of contract, FOIA violations, etc., but fails to plead specific facts establishing the elements of any of these claims against any defendant.
Plaintiffs' complaint asserts criminal wrongdoing by various parties.
Plaintiffs clearly lack standing to initiate criminal proceedings. See Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) (private citizen lacks standing to initiate criminal proceedings); Associated Builders Contractors v. Perry, 16 F.3d 688, 692-93 (6th Cir. 1994) (private party lacks standing to compel the state to pursue criminal or civil actions); People v. Veenstra, 60 N.W.2d 309, 311 (Mich. 1953). Plaintiffs' purported criminal claims against all defendants have no legal basis and must be dismissed.
Plaintiffs' claims for monetary damages against the State of Michigan defendants (State of Michigan Engler, Posthumus, Granholm, Kelley, Wheatley, Reynolds, Helmila, Johnston, Boucher, State of Michigan, Michigan Department of State Police, Michigan Department of Community Health, Center for Forensic Psychiatry, Bureau of Workers Disability Compensation, Michigan Department of Civil Rights) and the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility are clearly barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 68 (1989); see also Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 592-93 (6th Cir. 1989).
The judicial defendants are entitled to dismissal of the complaint on the basis of judicial immunity. Judges enjoy absolute immunity from damage suits for acts performed in their judicial capacity, except for acts done in the clear absence of jurisdiction. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967); Barites v. Winchell, 105 F.3d 1111, 1115-16 (6th Cir. 1997); accord Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991). Additionally, quasi-judicial immunity protects clerks and deputy clerks of the court who act within the scope of their authority or issue process pursuant to a previous order of the court. See Bush v. Rauch, 38 F.3d 842, 847 (6th Cir. 1994); Foster v. Walsh, 864 F.2d 416, 417 (6th Cir. 1988); Kurzawa v. Mueller, 732 F.2d 1456, 1458 (6th Cir. 1984); Denman v. Leedy, 479 F.2d 1097, 1098 (6th Cir. 1973).
Plaintiffs obviously disagree with actions taken by state courts. The recourse available to plaintiffs when the state court made decisions they considered adverse was to pursue timely appeals through the state court system This Court lacks jurisdiction to review the state-court decisions plaintiffs attempt to challenge in this lawsuit. See District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 483 n. 16 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923); United States v. Owens, 54 F.3d 271, 274 (6th Cir. 1995).
Plaintiff Ronald Thorne asks this Court to interfere in state competency proceedings related to a state-court criminal prosecution against him. Specifically, he requests release from the Center for Forensic Psychiatry. A civil rights action is an inappropriate vehicle by which to challenge criminal convictions and generally state criminal proceedings. In Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973), the Supreme Court held that when a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is by writ of habeas corpus. 411 U.S. at 500. Despite the literal breadth of section 1983, habeas corpus is the "exclusive remedy" for attacking the validity of state confinement. 411 U.S. at 489. Otherwise, the Court reasoned, Congress's carefully crafted habeas structure, requiring exhaustion of state remedies by state prisoners, would be undermined by permitting state prisoners to invoke civil rights jurisdiction, which, until recently, generally did not require exhaustion. Inasmuch as Congress had amended the habeas statute in 1948 to require exhaustion of state remedies, the Preiser Court concluded that it "would wholly frustrate explicit congressional intent to hold that the [challengers] could evade this requirement by the simple expedient of putting a different label on their pleadings." Id. at 489-490.
The Preiser Court dealt with a civil rights action seeking a restoration of state good time credits. The courts have applied its reasoning, however, to invalidate any civil rights action that directly or by implication challenges the fact or duration of confinement. More recently, the Supreme Court applied the Preiser doctrine to preclude a civil rights action for damages alleging malicious prosecution, even though the complaint did not explicitly seek release from custody. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Under the holding in Heck, any civil rights action calling into question the lawfulness of confinement must be preceded by a judicial finding, in a separate habeas corpus action, that the conviction or confinement was unconstitutional. 512 U.S. at 486-87; see also, Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997) (holding that a claim for declaratory relief and monetary damages based on allegations that unconstitutional procedures had been followed resulting in a loss of good-time credits was not cognizable under section 1983, as the prisoner's allegations necessarily implied the invalidity of the punishment). The present case falls squarely within this rule, as plaintiffs expressly challenge the basis of Ronald Thorne's confinement at the Center for Forensic Psychiatry. Such claims must be pursued by writ of habeas corpus after exhaustion of available state remedies. Plaintiffs' complaint in this regard must therefore be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
A few named defendants have not filed motions to dismiss, but have noted in their answers that plaintiffs' complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim against them. It is clear that plaintiffs have not pled facts establishing either federal question or diversity jurisdiction over these defendants. Plaintiffs' claims against all non-moving defendants will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court in its discretion declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law civil claim asserted in plaintiffs' complaint.
3. Other Pending Motions
The motions for a more definite statement and to strike by Warren J. Roberts, M.D. (docket #'s 56, 57) must be dismissed as moot. Other parties filed motions to dismiss requesting in the alternative other forms of relief. It is unnecessary to address the alternative motions in light of the Court's rulings on the motions to dismiss.
A number of defendants and objectors filed motions for Rule 11 sanctions. None of the moving parties demonstrated compliance with the safe harbor Provisions of Rule 11. See Morganroth Morganroth v. DeLorean, 123 F.3d 314, 394 (6th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, defendants' motions for sanctions (docket #s 5, 11, 38) will be denied.