Gill v. Englehardt et al

Filing 9

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT without Prejudice. Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (Chubb, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MILTON GILL, #391359,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 4:14-CV-10538
HONORABLE TERRENCE G.
BERG

v.
STANLEY ENGLEHARDT, et al.,

Defendants.
____________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER
DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE
I. INTRODUCTION
Michigan prisoner Milton Gill (“Plaintiff”), who is currently
confined at the Parnall Correctional Facility (“Parnall”) in Jackson,
Michigan, filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 on February 5, 2014. In that complaint, Gill asserts that he was
not given proper medical care, particularly pain medication, while
confined at the Gus Harrison Correctional Facility (“Gus Harrison”) in
Adrian, Michigan. Plaintiff Gill names physicians and nurses employed
at Gus Harrison as the defendants in this action and sues them in their

official capacities. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, i.e., to have the
Court act as a mediator between the parties to ensure that he receives
proper medical care. On February 11, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff
leave to proceed without prepayment of the fees and costs for this
action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). On March 25, 2014, Plaintiff filed an
amendment to his complaint asserting that he is being forced to enroll
in school to bolster prison funding and in retaliation for filing his
lawsuit, and asserting that he is not being given proper dental
treatment. The amendment does not identify who is allegedly
responsible for forcing Plaintiff to enroll in school, retaliating against
him, or denying him dental treatment.
II. DISCUSSION
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (“PLRA”), the
Court is required sua sponte to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint
before service on a defendant if the Court 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. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The
Court is similarly required to dismiss a complaint seeking redress
2

against government entities, officers, and employees which is 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.
28 U.S.C. § 1915A. A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis
in law or in fact. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992); Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
A pro se civil rights complaint is to be construed liberally. Haines
v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). Nonetheless, 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 Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citation omitted). While
this notice pleading standard does not require “detailed” factual
allegations, it does require more than the bare assertion of legal
principles or conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Rule 8 “demands
more than an unadorned, the defendant- unlawfully-harmed me
accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “A pleading
3

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). “Factual allegations must be enough to
raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that
all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-56 (citations and footnote omitted).
To state a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 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 (1978); Harris v. Circleville,
583 F.3d 356, 364 (6th Cir. 2009).
In his original complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the defendants
denied him proper medical care in violation of his Eighth Amendment
rights. The United States Supreme Court has held that “deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the
unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain proscribed by the Eighth

4

Amendment.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). The
deliberate indifference standard requires a prisoner to show that prison
official defendants acted with a reckless disregard of a known risk of
serious harm to the prisoner. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 836
(1994). A plaintiff may establish deliberate indifference by a showing of
grossly inadequate medical care. Terrance v. Northville Regional
Psychiatric Hosp., 286 F.3d 834, 843 (6th Cir. 2002).
Assuming, without deciding, that Plaintiff’s allegations in his
original complaint are sufficient to state such a claim, that complaint
must nevertheless be dismissed. Plaintiff sues the defendants, Gus
Harrison medical employees, in their official capacities and seeks
injunctive relief. Plaintiff, however, is no longer confined at Gus
Harrison and has been transferred to Parnall. Consequently, his claims
for injunctive relief as to the named defendants are moot – the Court
can no longer grant him the relief he seeks because the defendants are
no longer responsible for his medical care. See Cardinal v. Metrish, 564
F.3d 794, 798 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Kensu); Kensu v. Haigh, 87 F.3d
172, 175 (6th Cir. 1996) (prisoner’s claims for injunctive and declaratory

5

relief were rendered moot by his transfer to a new facility). Plaintiff’s
original complaint must therefore be dismissed.
Plaintiff’s amendment to his complaint (Dkt. 8) is also subject to
dismissal. Plaintiff’s supplemental claims, which concern his schooling
and dental care at the Parnall Correctional Facility, do not identify a
defendant or defendants who are responsible for the alleged actions and
are conclusory. The defendants in Plaintiff’s original complaint are
medical personnel at the Gus Harrison Correctional Facility who are
not responsible for his schooling or dental care at his current place of
confinement. Additionally, it is well-established that conclusory
allegations are insufficient to state a civil rights claim. Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555-57; Lanier v. Bryant, 332 F.3d 999, 1007 (6th Cir. 2003).
Plaintiff has thus failed to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted against the current defendants as to the supplemental claims.
Plaintiff’s amendment to his complaint must therefore be dismissed.1
III. CONCLUSION

The Court also notes that the claims in the amendment to the complaint are
likely not properly joined with the original complaint because they appear to
concern different defendants at another facility and do not involve the same
transactions or occurrences. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18, 20(a)(2).
1

6

The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief
against the named defendants are moot due to his prison transfer and
that he has failed to name defendants responsible for the conduct
alleged in his supplemental complaint. Accordingly, the Court
DISMISSES his civil rights complaint and the amendment to his
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). This
dismissal is without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a new complaint naming
the defendants responsible for the conduct alleged in the complaint and
seeking appropriate relief against those defendants. This case,
however, is closed and will not be reopened. Lastly, the Court concludes
that an appeal from this order cannot be taken in good faith. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445
(1962).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 22, 2014

s/Terrence G. Berg
TERRENCE G. BERG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that this Order was electronically submitted on
April 22, 2014, using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification
to each party.
s/A. Chubb
Case Manager
7