Where a plaintiff brought a civil rights action under § 1983, the complaint must be dismissed because it fails to state any federal claims upon which relief may be granted.
“Plaintiff sues the County of Marquette and Marquette County Prosecutors Jenna Nelson and Dakota Fountain. … He also sues the State of Michigan, the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC), MDOC Correctional Facility Warden Erica Huss, and Stephanie Gordon. …
“Plaintiff alleges that during March of 2023, he was arrested by the Michigan State Police and charged with stalking MDOC Warden Erica Huss. …
“Plaintiff contends that he was falsely arrested and imprisoned and maliciously prosecuted. … He contends that Defendants committed these wrongs in retaliation for Plaintiff’s exercise of his First Amendment rights by assisting prisoner Harold Cunningham through the non-profit Legal Advocate 360* and communicating with Defendant Huss through LinkedIn. …
“… For the same reason that Plaintiff has failed to state a damage claim against the State of Michigan, he has failed to state a damage claim against Prosecutors Nelson and Fountain in their official capacities. …
“It appears that Plaintiff has named Marquette County as a defendant because of the connection between the county and the prosecutor’s office. But Marquette County may not be held vicariously liable for the actions of county employees under §1983. …
“Here, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts to support his conclusory statements that an official policy or custom of Marquette County caused him to be prosecuted. Because Plaintiff fails to allege facts showing that a policy or custom was the moving force behind the alleged constitutional injury, he has failed to state a §1983 claim against Marquette County on which relief may be granted. …
“Plaintiff was deprived of a liberty interest in connection with the stalking prosecution. But he does not allege that the deprivation occurred without adequate process. The dockets of the Marquette County circuit and district courts reveal that Plaintiff was afforded all of the process he was due in connection with that deprivation. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim against Defendant Huss on which relief may be granted. …
“Plaintiff’s complaint contains no facts or allegations to support his equal protection claim. Instead, Plaintiff’s allegations of discriminatory treatment are wholly conclusory, which fails to state a claim under §1983. … Furthermore, even viewing Plaintiff’s equal protection claim as a class-of-one claim, the Court would reach the same conclusion because Plaintiff’s equal protection claims are wholly conclusory, and he has alleged no facts that plausibly suggest that his equal protection rights were violated. …
“Having conducted the review required under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2) and considered the Defendants’ motions to dismiss, the Court determines that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state any federal claims upon which relief may be granted. Moreover, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claims because it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.”