Scott #194644 v. Heyns et al

Filing 4

OPINION ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

DANIELLE S. SCOTT,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:14-cv-1277

v.

Honorable Robert J. Jonker

DANIEL H. HEYNS et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
OPINION
This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The Court has granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Under the Prison Litigation
Reform Act, PUB. L. NO. 104-134, 110 STAT. 1321 (1996), the Court is required to dismiss any
prisoner action brought under federal law if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such
relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). The Court must read Plaintiff’s pro
se complaint indulgently, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and accept Plaintiff’s
allegations as true, unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504
U.S. 25, 33 (1992). Applying these standards, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for failure
to state a claim against Defendants Heyns, McKee, Palmer and Laughhunn. The Court will serve
the complaint against Defendants Leach, Becher, Buskirk and Unknown Parties identified as IBC
Healthcare Workers.

Discussion
I.

Factual allegations

Plaintiff presently is incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections
(MDOC) at the Michigan Reformatory (RMI) although the events about which he complains took
place while he was incarcerated at RMI and the Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility (IBC). Plaintiff
names the following Defendants: MDOC Director Daniel Heyns; IBC Warden Kenneth McKee; RMI
Warden Carmen Palmer; MDOC Special Activities Coordinator David Leach; IBC Correctional
Transportation Officer (Unknown) Becher;1 IBC Nurses Laughhunn and Buskirk; and Unknown
Parties identified as IBC Healthcare Workers.
On October 10, 2013, Plaintiff was being transported to IBC on a bus driven by
Defendant Becher. Defendant Becher drove recklessly and at an excessive rate of speed which
caused the front tires of the bus to veer off the road, resulting in the passengers, including Plaintiff,
being thrown into the air. In the process of getting the front tires back on the road, Defendant Becher
caused the bus to swerve into oncoming traffic. By this time Plaintiff had landed hard on his seat
suffering injury to his head, neck and back.
Plaintiff and other passengers were taken to IBC Healthcare upon their arrival.
Despite his severe pain and the circumstances of the bus incident, Plaintiff was only given aspirin
and told to use a warm compress on his neck. Believing his treatment was inadequate, Plaintiff
wrote a grievance against IBC Healthcare.

1

Plaintiff identifies IBC Correctional Transportation Officer as “Becher” and “Becker.” The Court assumes
Plaintiff is referring to a single individual the spelling of whose name, Plaintiff is uncertain. Because Becher is the
original spelling used by Plaintiff on the form complaint, the Court will use that spelling.

-2-

Around October 15, 2013, Plaintiff wrote a letter to the Ombudsman complaining
about the bus incident, requesting that Defendant Becher be fired and describing IBC Healthcare’s
failure to treat him. Plaintiff’s family members also called the Ombudsman’s office to complain
about the bus incident and Plaintiff’s treatment. Plaintiff alleges that from that point on, in
retaliation for his grievance writing and his letter to the Ombudsman, IBC Healthcare, including
Defendants Unknown Parties identified as IBC Healthcare Workers, would not treat him.
On October 22, 2013, Plaintiff returned to IBC Healthcare complaining of severe
pain. Defendant Buskirk told him she would talk to the medical provider about getting something
for Plaintiff’s pain if he would sign-off on his grievance. Plaintiff refused. Plaintiff was then seen
by Defendant Unknown Party identified as a medical provider who also refused to treat Plaintiff
unless he signed-off on his grievance. Plaintiff wrote another grievance against IBC Healthcare
regarding his treatment. Two of Plaintiff’s IBC healthcare grievances were denied by Defendant
Laughhunn at Step III. Plaintiff also wrote letters to Defendant Heyns and McKee informing them
about the bus incident, IBC Healthcare’s failure to treat his injuries and requesting help.
Plaintiff states that he has been a practicing Muslim for more than 20 years. After
he was transferred to RMI, he received a letter from Defendant Leach denying him a religious meal
accomodation. Plaintiff wrote to Defendant Palmer asking for a religious meal accommodation and
explaining that he was being denied a religious meal in retaliation for the complaint he filed with the
Ombudsman’s office. Plaintiff also wrote a grievance regarding the denial of a religious meal
accommodation.
Plaintiff arguably raises claims under the Eighth Amendment for failure to protect
and deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and under the First Amendment for
-3-

retaliation and religious discrimination. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
monetary damages.
II.

Failure to state a claim

A complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if “‘it fails 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, 45-46 (1957)).
While a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s allegations must include
more than labels and conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.”). The court must determine whether the complaint contains “enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has
facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
Although the plausibility standard is not equivalent to a “‘probability requirement,’ . . . it asks for
more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 556). “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the
mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged – but it has not ‘show[n]’ – that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2)); see also Hill
v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010) (holding that the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility
standard applies to dismissals of prisoner cases on initial review under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1)
and 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)).

-4-

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right
secured by the federal Constitution or laws and must show that the deprivation was committed by
a person acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Street v. Corr.
Corp. of Am., 102 F.3d 810, 814 (6th Cir. 1996). Because § 1983 is a method for vindicating federal
rights, not a source of substantive rights itself, the first step in an action under § 1983 is to identify
the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994).
Plaintiff fails to make specific factual allegations against Defendants Heyns, McKee,
Palmer and Laughhunn, other than his claim that they failed to conduct an investigation in response
to his grievances. Government officials may not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of
their subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior or vicarious liability. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676;
Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691(1978); Everson v. Leis, 556 F.3d
484, 495 (6th Cir. 2009).

A claimed constitutional violation must be based upon active

unconstitutional behavior. Grinter v. Knight, 532 F.3d 567, 575-76 (6th Cir. 2008); Greene v.
Barber, 310 F.3d 889, 899 (6th Cir. 2002). The acts of one’s subordinates are not enough, nor can
supervisory liability be based upon the mere failure to act. Grinter, 532 F.3d at 576; Greene, 310
F.3d at 899; Summers v. Leis, 368 F.3d 881, 888 (6th Cir. 2004). Moreover, § 1983 liability may
not be imposed simply because a supervisor denied an administrative grievance or failed to act based
upon information contained in a grievance. See Shehee v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295, 300 (6th Cir.
1999). “[A] plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own
individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676. Plaintiff has failed to
allege that Defendants Heyns, McKee, Palmer and Laughhunn engaged in any active unconstitutional
behavior. Accordingly, he fails to state a claim against them.
-5-

At this juncture, the Court will order service of the complaint on Defendants Becher,
Buskirk, Leach and Unknown Parties identified as IBC Healthcare Workers.
Conclusion
Having conducted the review now required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the
Court determines that Defendants Heyns, McKee, Palmer and Laughhun will be dismissed for failure
to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). The
Court will serve the complaint against Defendants Becher, Buskirk and Leach.2
An Order consistent with this Opinion will be entered.

Dated:

January 16, 2015

/s/ Robert J. Jonker
ROBERT J. JONKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

The Court currently is without sufficient information to serve the complaint on Unknown Parties identified as
IBC Healthcare Workers.

-6-