Soldan v. Robinson, 2:19-cv-11334

Plaintiff Richard Soldan, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sued the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) and three MDOC employees alleging due-process and First Amendment violations arising from parole revocation procedures.
On April 26, 2017 Soldan was served with parole-violation charges; he signed the charging document and waived a preliminary hearing but was informed he retained the right to a full revocation hearing.
Soldan was transferred to a county facility (IDRp) and alleges he repeatedly sought information about a hearing and was told he would not receive one; he could not file an MDOC grievance because grievance forms were not provided.
MDOC employees completed parole-violation worksheet forms recommending reinstatement to residential treatment; Soldan was ultimately released from IDRp on June 22, 2017.
Claims: federal Fourteenth Amendment due process and First Amendment retaliation, plus state-law claims (Michigan Constitution due process, false imprisonment, gross negligence); relief sought included declaratory/injunctive relief and damages for his detention period.
The Court sua sponte dismissed the Michigan Department of Corrections as a defendant on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether MDOC is amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983	Soldan seeks money and injunctive relief against MDOC for due-process and First Amendment violations	MDOC (as State entity) is immune from federal-court suit under the Eleventh Amendment	MDOC is immune; claim against MDOC dismissed

McCormick v. Miami Univ., 693 F.3d 654 (6th Cir. 2012) (Eleventh Amendment bars suits against states and their departments)
Thiokol Corp. v. Dep’t of Treasury, 987 F.2d 376 (6th Cir. 1993) (discussion of Eleventh Amendment immunity principles)
Harrison v. Michigan, 722 F.3d 768 (6th Cir. 2013) (MDOC not a person under § 1983 and Eleventh Amendment immunity applies)
Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (states’ sovereign immunity absent waiver or abrogation)
Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 (1978) (Eleventh Amendment bars certain suits against states)
Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1979) (Congress did not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity via § 1983)
Abick v. Michigan, 803 F.2d 874 (6th Cir. 1986) (Michigan has not consented to federal civil-rights suits)
McCoy v. Michigan, [citation="369 F. App'x 646"] (6th Cir. 2010) (unpublished but reported in Fed. App'x; MDOC held immune)
Courtemanche v. Gregels, [citation="79 F. App'x 115"] (6th Cir. 2003) (Fed. App'x decision recognizing MDOC immunity)