Abu-Dawud El-Amin v. Robert Brown, Jr., Dan Bolden, Judy Kalmanek, John Jabe, Sally Langley, 925 F.2d 1463 (6th Cir. 1991). · Go Syfert
Search
Abu-Dawud El-Amin v. Robert Brown, Jr., Dan Bolden, Judy Kalmanek, John Jabe, Sally Langley, 925 F.2d 1463 (6th Cir. 1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
42 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Moore v. City of Harriman (ca6, 2001-11-08)
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991 2008 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Moore v. City of Harriman
6th Cir. · 2001 · confidence medium
LEXIS 3932, at *3 (6th Cir.2001) (order) (because complaint did not indicate that the defendants were being sued personally, court assumed that they were sued in their official capacity as state employees; citing Wells), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 54 , - L.Ed.2d - (2001) (No. 00-1823); Jasman v. Schmidt, 248 F.3d 1149 , 2001 WL 128430 , at *1 (6th Cir.2001) (affirming district court’s holding that defendants were immune from monetary damages because the plaintiff failed to allege capacity; citing Wells); Lillie v. Egelhoff, 238 F.3d 422 , 2000 WL 1829015 , at *1 (6th Cir.2000) (orde…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ralph Moore, Jr. v. City of Harriman Harriman Police Department Roy Jenkins, Chief of Police, Harriman Police Department Darren McBroom Terry Fink Randy Heidle Virgil McCart Jerry Singleton
6th Cir. · 2001 · confidence medium
Sumner, 166 F.3d 1213 , 1998 WL 786979 , at *1 (6th Cir. 1998) (same); Fennell v. Simmons, 162 F.3d 1161 , 1998 WL 552830 , at *2-3 (6th Cir. 1998) (Nelson, J.,) (dismissing appeal on jurisdictional grounds because the complaint failed to clearly set forth that the plaintiff was suing the state defendants in their individual capacities; citing Wells); Young v. Ward, 149 F.3d 1185 , 1998 WL 384564 , at *1 (6th Cir. 1998) (order) (affirming grant of summary judgment, noting that the plaintiff did not specify the capacity that he was suing the defendants in their individual capacities, and under …
discussed Cited "see" Graves v. Pinellas County Jail
M.D. Fla. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Flowers v. Tate, 925 F.2d 1463 (6th Cir. 1991) (holding that a prisoner “does not have a constitutional right to an effective grievance procedure.”); McCray v. Mallory, 931 F.2d 54 (4th Cir. 1991) (holding a plaintiff's claim regarding insufficiency of inmate grievance procedure to be “frivolous” because such a procedure is “not constitutionally required.”); Langbehn v. Henderson, 2007 WL 30602 , at *2 (N.D.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Abu-Dawud El-Amin
v.
Robert Brown, Jr., Dan Bolden, Judy Kalmanek, John Jabe, Sally Langley
90-1488.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Feb 8, 1991.
925 F.2d 1463
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Unpublished

925 F.2d 1463

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
Abu-Dawud EL-AMIN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Robert BROWN, Jr., Dan Bolden, Judy Kalmanek, John Jabe,
Sally Langley, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 90-1488.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 8, 1991.

Before MILBURN and RALPH B. GUY, Jr., Circuit Judges, and BAILEY BROWN, Senior Circuit Judge.

ORDER

1

Abu-Dawud El-Amin, a pro se Michigan prisoner, appeals the district court's summary judgment for the defendants in his civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination of the record and the briefs, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

2

Seeking declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief, El-Amin sued five officials and employees of the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) for allegedly violating his first amendment right to the free exercise of religion. El-Amin did not specify the capacity in which he sued the defendants. El-Amin, a Muslim, alleged that an MDOC memorandum and policy directive prevented his attendance at Friday afternoon Al-Jummah prayers because they prohibited release from work assignments to attend religious services.

3

The magistrate recommended granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that the policy complained of was reasonably related to the legitimate penological interests articulated by the MDOC's Director of Programs. Over El-Amin's objections, the district court adopted the magistrate's report and recommendation and granted summary judgment for the defendants in an order filed March 26, 1990. El-Amin's motion for reconsideration was denied April 10, 1990.

4

On appeal, El-Amin continues to argue the merits of his first amendment claim and, in addition, raises an equal protection argument. In his brief, El-Amin requests the appointment of counsel.

5

Upon review, we shall affirm the district court's judgment as to El-Amin's first amendment claim because there is no genuine issue of material fact and the defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). El-Amin's equal protection claim was not first raised before the district court and is thus not reviewed on appeal. Pinney Dock & Transport Co. v. Penn Cent. Corp., 838 F.2d 1445, 1461 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 880 (1988). Further, because El-Amin has not named the defendants in their individual capacity, they are deemed in their official capacity and are not subject to suit for monetary damages under Sec. 1983. Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 2311 (1989); Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 593 (6th Cir.1989).

6

Accordingly, the district court's summary judgment for the defendants is hereby affirmed for the reasons stated by the magistrate in her report and recommendation filed February 23, 1990. Rule 9(b)(5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.