Bennett v. MDOC et al

Filing 163

ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' 129 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

Case 2:15-cv-14465-MFL-RSW ECF No. 163 filed 08/10/20

PageID.2381

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CARL BENNETT,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-cv-14465
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MDOC
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 129)
In this action, Plaintiff Carl Bennett brings the following claims against the
Michigan Department of Corrections (the “MDOC”) and several MDOC employees
(collectively, the “MDOC Defendants”): violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution (Count I); violation of the federal Americans
with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (Count II); violation
of the federal Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (Count III), violation of the
Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (the “PWDCRA”), Mich.
Comp. Laws § 37.1101 et seq. (Count IV); and negligent infliction of emotional
distress (“NIED”) (Count V). (4th Am. Compl. ¶¶ 106–144, ECF No. 121,
PageID.1668–1676.) Bennett also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. (See id.,
PageID.1677.)
1

Case 2:15-cv-14465-MFL-RSW ECF No. 163 filed 08/10/20

PageID.2382

Page 2 of 3

On September 26, 2019, the MDOC Defendants moved for summary
judgment on all of Bennett’s claims. (See MDOC Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J., ECF
No. 129.) The Court held an on-the-record video hearing on the MDOC Defendants’
motion on August 6, 2020. For the reasons stated on the record, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that:
 The MDOC Defendants’ motion is DENIED with respect to Bennett’s
constitutional claims (Count I);
 The MDOC Defendants’ motion is DENIED with respect to Bennett’s ADA
claim against the MDOC and GRANTED with respect to Bennett’s ADA
claim against the individual MDOC employees (Count II);
 The MDOC Defendants’ motion is DENIED with respect to Bennett’s
Rehabilitation Act claim against the MDOC and GRANTED with respect to
Bennett’s Rehabilitation Act claim against the individual MDOC employees
(Count III);
 The MDOC Defendants’ motion is GRANTED with respect to the entirety of
Bennett’s PWDCRA claim (Count IV);
 The MDOC Defendants’ motion is GRANTED with respect to the entirety of
Bennett’s NIED claim (Count V); and
 The MDOC Defendants’ motion is GRANTED with respect to Bennett’s
claim for declaratory and injunctive relief.
2

Case 2:15-cv-14465-MFL-RSW ECF No. 163 filed 08/10/20

PageID.2383

Page 3 of 3

In sum, at this point only the following claims regarding the MDOC
Defendants remain: Bennett’s constitutional claims against the MDOC and the
individual MDOC employees, his ADA claim against the MDOC, and his
Rehabilitation Act claim against the MDOC. The MDOC Defendants are granted
summary judgment on all of Bennett’s other claims.
Following the entry of this Order, this matter will be referred to a magistrate
judge for a settlement conference. Following the settlement conference, the Court
will hold a bench trial (if necessary) with respect to whether Bennett exhausted his
administrative remedies. If – following the bench trial – the Court finds that Bennett
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, then the Court will enter judgment in
favor of the MDOC and the individual MDOC employees on all of Bennett’s
remaining claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: August 10, 2020
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on August 10, 2020, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

3