Stoudemire v. Michigan Department of Corrections et al

Filing 139

ORDER re 128 Appeal Order/Opinion/Judgment. Court grants the Defendants motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 69) with respect to the state law claims against Davis and Dunagan, and denies their request as it pertains to Davis claim of qualified immunity from the Plaintiffs § 1983 claim. Signed by District Judge Julian Abele Cook. (KDoa)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARTINIQUE STOUDEMIRE,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 07-15387
Honorable Julian Abele Cook, Jr.

v.
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, a
public entity, PATRICIA CARUSO, Director of the
Michigan Department of Corrections, GEORGE J.
PRAMSTALLER, D.O., MDOC Chief Medical
Officer, RICHARD RUSSELL, MDOC Bureau of
Health Care Administrator, SUSAN DAVIS, Warden,
Huron Valley Women’s Facility, MUHAMMAD
MUSTAFA, M.D., UYEN THAI-BUDZINSKI, M.D.,
Nursing Staff JANET ADAMICK, R.N., ANITA M.
LEECH, FRANK WINTERSTEEN, Corrections
Officer ARRIEL N. DUNAGAN, in their Official and
Individual capacities, jointly and severally,
Defendants.
ORDER

The Plaintiff, a double amputee and former prisoner at the Huron Valley Women’s
Correctional Facility (“Huron Valley”) in Ypsilanti, Michigan, brought this lawsuit against the
Michigan Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) and various MDOC-associated officers and
healthcare professionals.1 The crux of her claims, premised under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C.
§ 12132, and Mich. Comp. Laws. § 330.1722, pertains to the alleged failure by the Defendants to
provide adequate health care and accommodations for disabled individuals. The Plaintiff also
asserts that she was subjected to an unconstitutional strip search in violation of the Fourth

1

The Defendants in this case have been identified by the Plaintiff as Patricia Caruso,
George Pramstaller, Richard Russell, Susan Davis, Janet Adamick, Anita Leech, Frank
Wintersteen and Arriel Dunagan (hereinafter identified as the "MDOC Defendants"), along with
two independent contracting physicians, Dr. Muhammad Mustafa and Dr. Uyen Thai-Budzinski.

Amendment.
On March 31, 2011, the Court entered an order which denied, in part, the MDOC
Defendants’ motions to dismiss and for the entry of a summary judgment in connection with their
qualified immunity defenses relating to two of the Plaintiff’s claims.2 An appeal by the MDOC
Defendants followed. On January 31, 2013, the Sixth Circuit partially vacated the March 31, 2011
order, and directed the Court to evaluate the following two issues on remand; namely, (1) whether
Susan Davis, (“Davis”) the warden of Huron Valley during all times that are relevant to this action,
is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the Plaintiff’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and
(2) if Davis or Arriel Dunagan (“Dunagan”), the officer who was responsible for conducting the
now-challenged strip search, are shielded from liability under state law pursuant to Michigan’s
governmental immunity doctrine. Stoudemire v. Michigan Dep’t Of Corr., 705 F.3d 560 (6th Cir.
2013).
Consistent with the directive from the Sixth Circuit, on September 25, 2013 the Court
granted the Plaintiff’s request to reopen the record to consider additional evidence relevant to the
issues on remand. (ECF No. 134). The Court further ordered both parties to file supplemental briefs
that would detail their positions in light of the Sixth Circuit’s opinion and the expanded record. Id.
In her response to the Defendants’ supplemental brief (ECF No. 137), the Plaintiff opted “not [to]
object to the Defendants’ motion insofar as it seeks dismissal of the state law claims against both
Defendants.” Id. at 8. Thus, the Court grants the Defendants’ motion for dismissal as it relates to

2

As noted in an earlier opinion of the Court, the Plaintiff did not challenge the request by
the MDOC Defendants to dismiss Counts I and IV against the Defendants (Caruso, Russell,
Pramstaller, Wintersteen, Adamick and Leach). As a result, the Court granted the MDOC
Defendants’ motion for dismissal with regard to Counts I and IV only as it related to the abovelisted individuals.
2

the now-pending state law claims against Davis and Dunagan. Accordingly, the sole issue before
the Court is whether qualified immunity protects Davis from the Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim.
I.
The events which gave rise to this litigation have been thoroughly outlined in the order of
March 31, 2011. (ECF No. 109). The crux of the Plaintiff’s claims revolves around Davis’ alleged
failure, in her official capacity as the warden of Huron Valley, to provide proper accommodations
for a double amputee who was adversely affected by Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureas
(“MRSA”). According to the Plaintiff, she acquired MRSA following the amputation of her left
leg. As a result of her condition, her housing assignment at Huron Valley was changed from the
infirmary to the segregation unit. Pointing to the absence of handicap facilities within this unit, the
Plaintiff alleges that she was unable to safely transfer from her wheelchair to the bed or toilet, and
was allowed only one shower during the two weeks while housed in segregation. (Stoudemire
Decl., Ex. 1 at ¶ 13-22, ECF No. 89-1).
In addition to the obvious problems created by this housing designation, the Plaintiff also
contends that there was no electrical mechanism which would enable her to seek emergency
assistance from the penal staff for help with “daily dressing changes for the actively-draining
infected stump of her leg.” (Plf’s Supp. Resp., 3, ECF No. 135). Moreover, the Plaintiff had
difficulty getting to the toilet on time and allegedly defecated on herself on at least one occasion.
(Stoudemire Decl., ¶ 21). Finally, after complaining of shortness of breath and chest pains on
February 5, 2006, the Plaintiff avers that she lost consciousness on the following day which resulted
in her admittance to the hospital for emergency treatment. Id. at ¶ 24.
The parties sharply disagree over Davis’ role, if any, in the decision to house the Plaintiff

3

in segregation, as well as her knowledge of the Plaintiff’s physical limitations. According to the
Plaintiff, MDOC policy required the healthcare staff at Huron Valley to alert Davis of any prisoner
with a documented culture positive for MRSA. (Russell Memo, Ex. 28, ECF No. 89-28). Once
armed with this information, Davis was thereafter obligated to immediately initiate the prescribed
medical quarantine process, which required the “patient [to be] housed without contact with other
prisoners . . . . ” Id. Although Davis purportedly had the authority to “transfer [the Plaintiff] to
another facility due to the unavailability of an appropriate bed”, she did not opt to exercise this
power. Id. Instead, according to her own account, she relied on the determination by the Bureau of
Health Care Services (“BHCS”) that the Plaintiff did not need any special medical
accommodations, thus warranting her designation to the segregated housing unit. (Davis Dep., Ex.
A at 40, ECF No. 131-2).
Davis, on the other hand, maintains that she had no personal knowledge of the Plaintiff’s
medical needs, and was thus not responsible for the seemingly ill-advised decision to place her in
segregated housing. Even assuming that the Plaintiff did have a serious medical condition which
would warrant special treatment, Davis argues that she acted reasonably under the circumstances
by relying on her medical staff to determine the need for any special accommodations. Finally,
Davis points out that, during the course of her rounds, she “would check the logbook to make sure
that medical professionals had been through at least daily to see [the Plaintiff] for however often
[her] particular need was.” Id. at 26. As such, Davis maintains that she is entitled to qualified
immunity with respect to the Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim.
II.
The Defendant has moved for dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 56(c). Pursuant

4

to Rule 12(d), “[i]f, on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c), matters outside the pleadings are
presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary
judgment under Rule 56.” In the original order which denied in part the Defendants’ motion, the
Court considered a plethora of evidence outside the pleadings. As such, the issues on remand will
be analyzed under the summary judgment framework.
The purpose of the summary judgment rule, as reflected by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
56, “is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupportable claims or defenses . . . .” Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323–24, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The entry of a summary
judgment is proper only “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “A fact is
‘material’ for purposes of summary judgment if proof of that fact would have the effect of
establishing or refuting an essential element of the cause of action or a defense advanced by the
parties.’” Aqua Grp., LLC v. Fed. Ins. Co., 620 F.Supp.2d 816, 819 (E.D. Mich. 2009) (citing
Kendall v. Hoover Co., 751 F.2d 171, 174 (6th Cir. 1984)). In order for a dispute to be genuine, it
must contain evidence upon which a trier of the facts could find in favor of the nonmoving party.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986);
Singfield v. Akron Metro. Hous. Auth., 389 F.3d 555, 560 (6th Cir. 2004). When assessing a request
for the entry of a summary judgment, a court “must view the facts and all inferences to be drawn
therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” 60 Ivy Street Corp. v. Alexander,
822 F.2d 1432, 1435 (6th Cir. 1987). The entry of a summary judgment is appropriate if the
nonmoving party fails to present evidence which is “sufficient to establish the existence of an
element essential to its case, and on which it will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex, 477

5

U.S. at 322.
Thus, the moving party has the initial obligation of identifying those portions of the record
that demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue of a material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.
Thereafter, the nonmoving party must “come forward with some probative evidence to support its
claim and make it necessary to resolve the differences at trial.” Boyd v. Ford Motor Co., 948 F.2d
283, 285 (6th Cir. 1991); see also Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. The presence or the absence of a
genuinely disputed material fact must be established by (1) a specific reference to “particular parts
of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information,
affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only),
admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials,” or (2) a “showing that the materials cited
do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot
produce admissible evidence to support the fact.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1).
III.
The Plaintiff cites to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as a basis for her contention that Davis had violated
her Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Davis disagrees. In
order for the Plaintiff to prevail, she “must demonstrate a genuine issue of [a] material fact as to
the following ‘two elements: (1) the deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of
the United States, and (2) that the deprivation was caused by a person acting under color of state
law.’” Miller v. Calhoun County, 408 F.3d 803, 812 (6th Cir. 2005).
Here, there appears to be no disagreement that Davis was acting under the color of a state
law during all of the times about which the Plaintiff has complained. Thus, the remaining question
is whether Davis deprived this Plaintiff of any right that is protected by federal law.

6

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary
functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not
violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should
have known.” Phillips v. Roane Cnty., 534 F.3d 531, 538 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Harlow v.
Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982)). In resolving an official’s
governmental immunity claim, the Court is urged to examine whether (1) the facts as alleged
demonstrate the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) the right at issue was clearly established
at the time of the alleged misconduct. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232, 129 S. Ct. 808, 816,
172 L. Ed. 2d 565 (2009). The Court has discretion to decide which of the two prongs should be
evaluated first. Id. at 236. “Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, the burden is on the
plaintiff to demonstrate that the officials are not entitled to qualified immunity.” Moldowan v. City
of Warren, 578 F.3d 351, 375 (6th Cir. 2009).
With respect to the first layer of the qualified immunity test, the Plaintiff alleges that Davis
violated her Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by (1)
confining her to a cell that was not properly equipped for a double amputee, and (2) prevented her
from receiving medical treatment in a timely fashion.
The Eighth Amendment prohibits prison officials from “unnecessarily and wantonly
inflicting pain on an inmate by acting with ‘deliberate indifference’ toward [her] serious medical
needs.’” Blackmore v. Kalamazoo Cnty., 390 F.3d 890, 895 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976)). A constitutional claim for denial
of medical care under the Eighth Amendment has objective and subjective components. Farmer
v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). The objective component

7

requires the existence of a “sufficiently serious” medical need. Id. at 834. As the Supreme Court
explained in Farmer, “the inmate must show that [she] is incarcerated under conditions posing a
substantial risk of serious harm.” Id. The subjective element requires “an inmate to show that prison
officials have ‘a sufficiently culpable state of mind in denying medical care.’” Blackmore, 390 F.3d
at 895. This determination should be made “in light of the prison authorities’ current attitudes and
conduct.’” Id. As such, “the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be
drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Farmer,
511 U.S. at 837.
Here, there is no question that the Plaintiff’s medical needs were objectively serious. As the
Sixth Circuit stated in Blackmore, “a medical need is objectively serious if it is ‘one that has been
diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one that is so obvious that even a lay person
would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention.’” 390 F.3d at 897 (emphasis in
original). Notwithstanding the Plaintiff’s status as a double amputee with no motor function below
her knees, she was assigned to the segregated housing unit to prevent the spread of MRSA - a
serious medical condition that was allegedly acquired following the amputation of her left leg. It
is well understood that MRSA presents serious risks to the carrier and “can be a source of
community acquired infections.” (Russell Memo, Ex. 28 at 6023, ECF No. 89-28); See Nelson v.
Putnam Cnty. Justice Ctr., 2:13-CV-00029, 2013 WL 1623686, *3 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 15, 2013)
(“[T]he [c]ourt finds that a MRSA infection can pose an objectively serious medical condition . .
. . ”).
Likewise, there can be little disagreement that the conditions of the Plaintiff’s confinement
in a segregated prison cell fell short of the mark articulated in Farmer. Indeed, not only was her cell

8

ill-equipped to house a double amputee, there was no mechanism for an inmate such as the Plaintiff
to alert the penal staff of those pertinent issues related to her MRSA infection. This fact is
particularly alarming, especially when the following factors relating to this inmate are considered;
namely, (1) she was released from the University of Michigan Hospital following her third
amputation just hours before being placed in segregation, (2) the primary reason which apparently
motivated the change in her housing assignment (from the infirmary to the segregation unit) was
her MRSA infection, and (3) the MDOC’s internal memorandum clearly stated that its facilities
must take “a proactive, more aggressive approach to MRSA infection[s] . . . . ” (Russell Memo,
at 6023). In summary, the Court finds that the conditions of confinement created a significant risk
of serious harm to the Plaintiff during the times that are relevant to this controversy.
Regarding the subjective element of an Eighth Amendment claim, whether Davis was
deliberately indifferent to the Plaintiff’s needs, “is a question of fact subject to determination in the
usual ways, including inference from circumstantial evidence, and a factfinder may conclude that
a prison official knew of a substantial risk from the very fact that the risk was obvious.” Farmer,
511 U.S. 825, 826. Davis’ central argument on this point is that she “acted reasonably by relying
on medical staff to care for prisoners’ medical needs”, and had no personal knowledge of the risk
posed to the Plaintiff. (Def. Supp. Brf., 2, ECF No.136). However, the proper inquiry is not whether
Davis acted reasonably, but rather whether she was “aware of facts from which the inference could
be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exist[ed] . . . .” Blackmore, 390 F.3d at 896.
A review of the record in this matter supports the notion that Davis was deliberately
indifferent to the conditions of the Plaintiff’s confinement while in quarantine. First and foremost,
Davis acknowledged that Huron Valley’s segregation unit lacked handicap accessible cells during

9

all times relevant to this case. (Davis Dep., Ex. A at 24, ECF No. 131-2). Furthermore, when asked
what, if anything, she recalled about the Plaintiff, Davis replied, “[j]ust the fact that, you know, she
was a double amputee.” Id. at 47. Finally, Davis testified that she “probably was aware at the time”
that the Plaintiff was assigned to the segregation unit following her MRSA infection.3 Id. at 26.
This admission is buttressed by Davis’ later testimony that she made daily rounds to ensure that the
medical needs of those physically handicapped individuals who were quarantined in segregation
units were adequately addressed. Id. Thus, the record herein suggests that Davis had reason to know
that the Plaintiff–a double amputee recovering from MRSA–was housed in a cell without a trapeze,
grab bars, or a commode chair, and had a very limited means of alerting prison officials if
additional medical attention was necessary.
Viewing these facts in a light most favorable to the Plaintiff, the Court concludes that a
reasonable jury could find that Davis was “aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn
that a substantial risk of serious harm exist[ed] and [she] ignored that risk.” Blackmore, 390 F.3d
at 896.
Finally, the constitutional right at issue here is the right to be free from cruel and unusual
punishment while in confinement. In evaluating whether a constitutional right was clearly
established, “[t]he key determination is whether a defendant moving for summary judgment on
qualified immunity grounds was on notice that [her] alleged actions were unconstitutional.” Grawey
v. Drury, 567 F.3d 302, 313 (6th Cir. 2009). In Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05, 97 S.Ct.
285, 291, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976), the Supreme Court held that “deliberate indifference to serious

3

Moreover, MDOC’s own internal memorandum requires Huron Valley’s Bureau of
Health Care Services to “notify the [w]arden/designee of each confirmed [MRSA] case to initiate
the quarantine.” (Russell Memo at 6022)
10

medical needs of prisoners constitutes the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain proscribed
by the Eighth Amendment.’” For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that the Plaintiff’s
constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment was clearly established in this
case. As such, the Court denies the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to
Davis’ claim of qualified immunity.
IV.
Accordingly, for the reasons that have been set forth above, the Court grants the
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 69) with respect to the state law claims
against Davis and Dunagan, and denies their request as it pertains to Davis’ claim of qualified
immunity from the Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: May 15, 2014

s/Julian Abele Cook, Jr.
JULIAN ABELE COOK, JR.
U.S. District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Order was served upon counsel of record via the Court's ECF System to their
respective email addresses or First Class U.S. mail to the non-ECF participants on May 15, 2014.
s/ Kay Doaks
Case Manager

11