Warren v. Flint Water Department
Filing
6
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS 2 AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT, Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (WBar)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Tavaras Etone Warren,
Plaintiff,
v.
Flint Water Department,
Case No. 20-13396
Judith E. Levy
United States District Judge
Defendant.
________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO
PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS [2] AND
DISMISSING COMPLAINT
On December 3, 2020, Plaintiff Tavaras Etone Warren, a federal
inmate incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary, Hazelton in
Bruceton Mills, WV, filed a complaint seeking redress for the various
harms he suffered1 due to his use and consumption of the City of Flint’s
municipal water. (ECF No 2.) Plaintiff states that he often experiences
stomach aches, dizziness, body cramps, red skin rashes, bumpy skin,
anxiety, and depression as a result of his use of Flint water. (Id. at
The harms Plaintiff complains about are not related to his current
incarceration.
1
PageID.8.) He is suing the Flint Water Department for violating his
Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and seeks $1.5 million in compensatory and
punitive damages. (Id.)
Plaintiff requests permission to proceed without prepaying fees or
costs (in forma pauperis). (ECF No. 2.) The in forma pauperis statute, 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) states: “any court of the United States may authorize
the commencement . . . of any suit, action or proceeding . . . without
prepayment of fees . . . by a person who submits an affidavit that includes
a statement . . . that the person is unable to pay such fees.” Plaintiff is
unemployed, incarcerated, and reports that he has no cash or money in
any bank accounts. (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff satisfies the requirements
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and his application to proceed in forma
pauperis is granted.
Because he proceeds in forma pauperis, the Court must screen the
complaint to see if it states a claim or is frivolous. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). When a plaintiff proceeds without counsel, the Court must
liberally construe the complaint and hold it to a less stringent standard
than a similar pleading drafted by an attorney. Haines v. Kerner, 404
2
U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, even pro se complaints must satisfy basic
pleading requirements. Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989).
Plaintiff has not stated an actionable Eighth Amendment claim.
Eighth Amendment claims are typically brought by prisoners related to
treatment while in custody. See Dellis v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 257 F.3d 508
(6th Cir. 2001); Richmond v. Settles, 450 F. App’x 448 (6th Cir. 2011).
Here, Plaintiff claims to have been exposed to Flint water for more than
20 years (ECF No. 1, PageID.6-7), and he does so without explaining how
that claim relates to his conditions of confinement at Federal
Correctional Institution Hazelton in Bruceton Mills, WV. From what the
Court can discern from the complaint, Plaintiff claims he consumed
contaminated Flint water before being incarcerated, which would mean
that any resulting effects from consuming the contaminated water are
not related to his conditions of his confinement. Accordingly, Plaintiff
fails to state an actionable claim.
In addition to the above, the Flint Water Department is an
improper Defendant. The Flint Water Department is a department
within the City of Flint, and not a separate entity from the City.
Municipal agencies or departments, like the Flint Water Department, are
3
not generally eligible to be sued as defendants in § 1983 suits. See
McGrew v. Duncan, 333 F. Supp. 3d 730, 744 (E.D. Mich. 2018) (stating
“city departments are not separate legal entities against which a suit can
be directed.”) (citing Laise v. City of Utica, 970 F. Supp. 605, 608 (E.D.
Mich. 1997); Pierzynowski v. Police Dep’t City of Detroit, 941 F. Supp. 633,
637 (E.D. Mich. 1996)); see also Matthews v. Jones, 35 F.3d 1046, 1049
(6th Cir. 1994) (stating a police department is not an entity that can be
sued under § 1983). Even if Plaintiff named the City of Flint, Plaintiff
still would not have an actionable Eighth Amendment case because the
City of Flint is not incarcerating him.
If Plaintiff was exposed to contaminated Flint water, he may be
eligible for relief through alternate means. The Flint Water Crisis (see
Walters v. Flint, No. 17-cv-10164, 2019 WL 3530874 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 2,
2019)) has generated numerous legal actions. If Plaintiff was exposed to
Flint water from April 25, 2014 to July 31, 2016, he and his family, who
he references in his complaint, may be eligible for relief under the terms
of a partial settlement, which received preliminary approval by this
Court on January 21, 2021. In re Flint Water Cases, No. 5:16-cv-10444,
(E.D. Mich. Jan. 21, 2021) (granting preliminary approval of a partial
4
settlement with regards to civil suits connected to what is commonly
known as the Flint Water Crisis).
Plaintiff has failed to state a claim and the case must be dismissed
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS
Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and DISMISSES the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 5, 2021
Ann Arbor, Michigan
s/Judith E. Levy
JUDITH E. LEVY
United States District Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served
upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s
ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on May 5, 2021.
s/William Barkholz
WILLIAM BARKHOLZ
Case Manager
5
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?