Lawrence Simmons, Plaintiff,
v.
Paul K. Beardslee, et al., Defendants.
No. 1:21-cv-896
United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
October 29, 2021
Hon. Paul L. Maloney, Judge.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
PHILLIP J. GREEN, United States Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff initiated this action October 21, 2021, against attorney James Reed and Calhoun County District Judge, the Honorable Paul K. Beardslee. (ECF No. 1). Because Plaintiff has been permitted to proceed as a pauper (ECF No. 6), the Court has reviewed Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to determine whether it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed.
BACKGROUND
On or about December 6, 2019, Plaintiff initiated in state court an action against James Doeling, Alicia Prentler, and Chris Bitgood, which was subsequently removed to this Court. Simmons v. Doeling, case no. 1:20-cv-08, ECF No. 1 (W.D. Mich.). Following removal, the claims against Doeling and Prentler were dismissed and the matter remanded to state court. (Id. at ECF No. 26). Plaintiff alleges that
following remand, the matter was assigned to Judge Beardslee. Plaintiff further asserts that Chris Bitgood, the remaining defendant, is represented by attorney James Reed. Plaintiff initiated the present action alleging that Judge Beardslee and attorney Reed violated his rights during the course of his litigation against Bitgood.
ANALYSIS
A claim must be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted unless the “[f]actual allegations [are] enough to raise a right for relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint's allegations are true.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007). As the Supreme Court has held, to avoid dismissal, a complaint must contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009). This plausibility standard “is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” If the complaint simply pleads facts that are “merely consistent with” a defendant's liability, it “stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.'” Id. As the Court further...
