Lantzy v. Corizon Health Services, Inc. et al
OPINION and ORDER dismissing plaintiff's complaint. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CBet)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SCOTT A. LANTZY,
Case Number: 2:16-CV-12871
HONORABLE NANCY G. EDMUNDS
CORIZON MEDICAL SERVICES, ET
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
This is a pro se prisoner civil rights case. Michigan state prisoner Scott A. Lantzy
is incarcerated at the Carson City Correctional Facility in Michigan. He asserts claims
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed without prepayment
of the filing fee for this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). In his complaint, Plaintiff
alleges that he suffers from several food-related allergies, but has not been provided with
allergy-free meals. The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted
and will be summarily dismissed.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint set forth “a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” as well as
“a demand for the relief sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), (3). The purpose of this rule is
to “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson,
355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S. Ct. 99 (1957) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). While this notice
pleading standard does not require “detailed” factual allegations, Twombly, 550 U.S. at
555, it does require more than the bare assertion of legal conclusions or “an unadorned,
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009). “A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.’” Id. quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. “Nor
does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual
enhancement.’” Id. quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557.
Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee for
this action due to his indigence. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), the
Court is required to sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint before service on
a defendant if it determines that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Similarly, the Court is required to dismiss a complaint seeking redress against
government entities, officers, and employees that it finds to be frivolous or malicious,
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). A complaint is
frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
325, 109 S. Ct. 1827 (1989).
To state a federal civil rights claim, a plaintiff must allege that (1) he was deprived
of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the federal Constitution or laws of the
United States, and (2) the deprivation was caused by a person acting under color of state
law. Flagg Bros. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 155-57, 98 S. Ct. 1729 (1978). A pro se civil
rights complaint is to be construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92
S. Ct. 594 (1972).
Plaintiff claims that he is not receiving allergen-free foods at his present place of
incarceration, Carson City Correctional Facility. He names two defendants, Corizon
Medical Services and Sherman Campbell, who is the warden of Carson City Correctional
Facility. Plaintiff’s allegations against these defendants are based upon their supervisory
The doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply in § 1983 lawsuits to impute
liability onto supervisory personnel, see Monell v. Department of Social Services of New
York, 436 U.S. 658, 691-95, 98 S. Ct. 2018 (1978), unless it is shown “that the supervisor
encouraged the specific incident of misconduct or in some other way directly participated
in it.” Bellamy v. Bradley, 729 F.2d 416, 421 (6th Cir. 1984). A supervisor’s failure to
supervise, train or control an employee is not actionable under § 1983, unless the plaintiff
shows “the official at least implicitly authorized, approved, or knowingly acquiesced in
the unconstitutional conduct . . .” Hays v. Jefferson County, Ky., 668 F.2d 869, 874 (6th
Cir. 1982); see also Shehee v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295, 300 (6th Cir. 1999) (“[A]
supervisory official’s failure to supervise, control or train the offending individual is not
actionable unless the supervisor either encouraged the specific incident of misconduct or
in some other way directly participated in it.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
He fails to allege that defendants had any direct involvement in the meals Plaintiff
is served or that defendants engaged in any “‘active unconstitutional behavior’” rather
than a “‘mere failure to act.’” Shehee, 199 F.3d at 200, quoting Salehpour v. Univ. of
Tenn., 159 F.3d 199, 206 (6th Cir. 1998). He does not allege that defendants were even
aware of any misconduct by any employee, but, even if he did, “simple awareness of
employees’ misconduct does not lead to supervisor liability.” Leary v. Daeschner, 349
F.3d 888, 903 (6th Cir. 2003).
In sum, Plaintiff does not allege that defendants Corizon Medical Services or
Campbell were actively involved in any of the alleged wrongdoing. The Court, therefore,
finds that Plaintiff’s claims are insufficient to state a claim for relief against either
For the reasons set forth above, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s complaint
lacks an arguable basis in law and fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed.
s/ Nancy G. Edmunds
NANCY G. EDMUNDS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: October 18, 2016
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?