Antoine #581263 v. Dewayne et al

Filing 44

MEMORANDUM OPINION ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)

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

)
SUFFREN ANTOINE, # 581263,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
DeWAYNE BURTON, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Case No. 1:15-cv-340
Honorable Robert Holmes Bell
MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is a civil rights action brought by a pro se by a former state prisoner under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is currently a resident of Kentwood, Michigan (ECF No. 37),
but he filed this lawsuit in 2015 while he was an inmate at the Gus Harrison
Correctional Facility (ARF). His complaint arises out of conditions of his confinement
from 2013 through 2015 at four Michigan prisons: ARF, Richard A. Handlon
Correctional Facility (MTU), Charles Egeler Reception & Guidance Center (RGC), and
Detroit Reentry Center1 (DRC).
Plaintiff named sixteen employees of the Michigan Department of Corrections
(MDOC) as defendants:

MTU’s Warden DeWayne Burton, Assistant Resident

Supervisor (ARUS) Robert Woldhuis, Sergeant (Unknown) Cooper, ARF’s Warden Paul
Klee, ARUS John Woodward, State Administrative Manager Vaughn Stewart,
Corrections Officer Alfredo Faz, School Teacher Ronald Seaberry, Corrections Officer

1

DRC is located on Ryan Road in Detroit, Michigan. Plaintiff refers to this
prison as the Ryan Road Correctional Facility.

Stephanie Jackson, Deputy Warden Lee McRoberts, Corrections Officer Mark
Tenniswood, Corrections Officer Thomas Thompson, Corrections Officer Alan Roeder,
Corrections Officer Richard Bayes, RGC’s Community Health Service Manager Michael
Barrett, and DRC’s Warden Kenneth Romanowski. Plaintiff alleges that defendants
violated his Eighth Amendment rights. Plaintiff sues all defendants’ in their official
capacities and seeks an award of damages. (Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.4-10, 35).
Discussion
Plaintiff sues defendants in their official capacities and seeks an award of
damages. All plaintiff’s claims are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. The
Eleventh Amendment bars suit in federal court against a state and its departments or
agencies unless the state has waived its sovereign immunity or unequivocally
consented to be sued. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89,
100 (1984). Michigan has not consented to civil rights suits in federal court. See
Johnson v. Dellatifia, 357 F.3d 539, 545 (6th Cir. 2004). A suit against a state officer
in his or her official capacity is simply another way of pleading an action against the
state. See Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989); VIBO Corp.
v. Conway, 669 F.3d 675, 691 (6th Cir. 2012).

Furthermore, states and their

departments are not “persons” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Will v.
Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. at 71. Defendants are entitled to dismissal
with prejudice of plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages against them in their official
capacities.

-2-

Conclusion
For the reasons set forth herein, a judgment will enter dismissing all plaintiff’s
claims against defendants Burton, Woldhuis, Cooper, Klee, Woodward, Stewart, Faz,
Seaberry, Jackson, McRoberts, Tenniswood, Thompson, Roeder, Bayes, Barrett, and
Romanowski with prejudice because they are barred by Eleventh Amendment
immunity.

Dated: March 29, 2016

/s/ Robert Holmes Bell
ROBERT HOLMES BELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-