Watson v. Murphy et al

Filing 28

OPINION AND ORDER granting 25 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 25 Motion to Dismiss; adopting 27 Report and Recommendation on 25 Motion for Summary Judgment, Motion to Dismiss, 17 Motion to Dismiss, Motion for Summary Judgment,, 27 Report and Recommendation, 12 Motion for TRO ; denying 12 Motion for TRO; granting 17 Motion to Dismiss; granting 17 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Patrick J. Duggan. (MOre)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CHARLES WATSON,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 12-cv-13592

v.

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

MURPHY, THOMAS, SIMMS,
and HARPER,

Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub

Defendants.
____________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION, (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (ECF NO. 12), (3) GRANTING
DEFENDANT SIMMS, HARPER, AND THOMAS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
OR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 17), AND (4) GRANTING
DEFENDANT BIENIEWICZ’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 25)
On August 14, 2012, Plaintiff Charles Watson, a federal prisoner, instituted
this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983 by filing a complaint
with this Court. (ECF No. 1.) At all times relevant to the allegations contained in
that complaint, Plaintiff, a federal prisoner, was housed at the Dickerson Detention
Facility in Hamtramck, Michigan.1 In his Complaint,2 Plaintiff names four

1

Dickerson Detention Facility is run by Wayne County, a municipality in
southeastern Michigan. Plaintiff was housed at this facility pursuant to a
contractual arrangement between the United States Marshal Service and Wayne
County.

defendants: Wayne County Sheriff’s Office Corporal William Simms, Sergeant
Deon Harper, Corporal Gerald Thomas, and Corporal Murphy. Defendant
Corporal Bieniewicz appeared in this action in response to claims levied against
Corporal Murphy, who was apparently misidentified. Defendants Bieniewicz and
Thomas are named only in their official capacities and the Complaint does not
indicate whether Defendants Sims and Harper are being sued.
Plaintiff alleges that on August 3, 2012, “officers” rushed into Plaintiff’s
housing unit at Dickerson and demanded that all inmates immediately sign waivers
or risk being sent to solitary confinement. The inmates were not given adequate
time to read the waiver and were not permitted to contact their attorneys. Plaintiff
alleges that he was placed on lock down because he refused to sign the form. In
his Complaint, Plaintiff asserts violations of his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment
rights because the officers coerced and forced inmates to sign the waiver form. As
a remedy, Plaintiff seeks to have the officers removed from their positions and that
the Court award him and the “additional Plaintiffs” $20,000 for the rights
deprivations.

2

The Complaint names three additional Plaintiffs. As discussed in
Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub’s Report and Recommendation, however, a
pro se Plaintiff may not represent others who did not sign the complaint.
Plaintiff’s Complaint contains only his signature and he is therefore the only
proper plaintiff. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a) (“Every pleading, written motion, and
other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s name
– or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented.”).
2

On March 4, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order, (ECF No. 12), which this Court referred to Magistrate Judge Mona K.
Mazjoub on the following day, (ECF No. 16). On March 12, 2013, Defendants
Harper, Simms, and Thomas filed a Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment.
(ECF No. 17.) At that time, this Court referred the lawsuit to Magistrate Judge
Majzoub for all pretrial matters proceedings, including a hearing and determination
of all non-dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and/or a report
and recommendation on all dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B). Plaintiff responded to this motion on April 3, 2013. (ECF No. 24.)
On May 9, 2013, Defendant Bieniwicz filed a Motion to Dismiss or for Summary
Judgment. (ECF No. 25.) Plaintiff did not respond to the latter motion.
On September 11, 2013, Magistrate Judge Mazjoub filed a Report and
Recommendation (R&R) recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order and grant the two dispositive motions filed on behalf
of the defendants. (ECF No. 27.)
With respect to Defendants’ Motions, the R&R concludes that Plaintiff’s
Fifth Amendment due process claim should be dismissed because the events
occurred in a county jail and the Fifth Amendment applies only to actions of the
federal government. (R&R 8.) Because the Complaint was filed pro se, the R&R
also analyzes whether Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights were
3

violated and concludes that they were not. (Id. at 8-10.) Turning to Plaintiff’s
Fourteenth Amendment allegations, which assert that Defendants violated the
Privileges and Immunities Clause, the R&R recommends dismissal because
Plaintiff failed to explain how his rights were abridged by state law. (Id. at 8.)
The R&R also notes that the relief Plaintiff seeks – monetary damages from
Defendants in their official capacities – is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
(Id. at 10.)
The R&R then turns to Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
and concludes that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate an entitlement to such relief. (Id.
at 10-11.)
At the conclusion of the R&R, Magistrate Judge Majzoub advises the parties
that they may object to and seek review of the R&R within fourteen (14) days of
service upon them. (Id. at 11.) She further specifically advises the parties that the
“[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right to
appeal.” (Id.) No objections to the R&R have been filed and the time for doing so
has expired.
After carefully reviewing Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendants’ Motions,
Plaintiff’s Response, and the R&R, the Court concurs with the conclusions reached
by Magistrate Judge Majzoub.
Accordingly,
4

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Majzoub’s R&R (ECF No. 27) is
adopted;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Harper, Simms, and
Thomas’ Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 17) is
GRANTED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Bieniwicz’s Motion to
Dismiss or for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order (ECF No. 12) is DENIED and Plaintiff’s Complaint is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Date: October 15, 2013
s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Charles Watson, # 2012010994
Milan Federal Correctional Institution
Inmate Mail/Parcels
P.O. Box 1000
Milan, MI 48160
Margaret M. Flanagan, Esq.

Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub

5