Sango #252200 v. Watkins et al
Filing
15
OPINION; signed by Judge Gordon J. Quist (Judge Gordon J. Quist, jmt)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ROBERT D. SANGO,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 1:15-cv-358
Honorable Gordon J. Quist
UNKNOWN WATKINS 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 Defendant Wolffer. The Court will serve the complaint against Defendants
Watkins and Burns.
Discussion
I.
Factual allegations
Plaintiff presently is incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections at
the Baraga Maximum Correctional Facility, however the events about which he complains took
place while he was housed at the Ionia Correctional Facility (ICF). Plaintiff sues three ICF
Correctional Officers: Unknown Watkins, Unknown Burns and Unknown Wolffer.
In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that on March 20, 2015, he was taken out of his cell
to meet with an attorney regarding the misconduct of certain ICF correctional officers, including
Defendant Watkins, toward another inmate. As Plaintiff was leaving his cell, Defendant Watkins
said, “[Y]ou[‘re] going up to rat me out again (etc.).” (Compl., docket #1, Page ID#2). Plaintiff did
not respond. When Plaintiff returned to his cell it had been ransacked by Defendant Watkins and
another correctional officer. Personal and legal documents had been destroyed and a request for
food loaf was placed on Plaintiff’s cell door. As Plaintiff was entering his cell another prisoner
called out to Plaintiff claiming that he had not been fed in 8 days. Defendant Watkins heard Plaintiff
tell the other prisoner to stay strong because Plaintiff had just talked to an investigator from a law
firm who was calling the state police. Defendant Watkins told Plaintiff “You[’re] not going to eat.”
The next day, Defendant Watkins did not feed Plaintiff.
On March 26, 2015, Plaintiff was escorted to the shower by Defendant Wolffer. On
the way to the shower, Defendant Watkins, who was apparently also present, began making
sexually- explicit noises, which Plaintiff alleges was Defendant Watkins’ way of mocking Plaintiff,
who had been sexually assaulted by a correctional officer. Watkins also threatened “to ram a
flashlight up [Plaintiff’s] ass.” (Id.) Plaintiff responded to Defendant Watkins’s noise-making by
saying, “that’s mature,” to which Defendant Watkins responded “so you just keep ratting me out huh
[b]itch.” (Id.) When Plaintiff asked Defendant Wolffer for a razor for the shower, Defendant
Watkins said “he’s going back to his cell.” (Id.) As Plaintiff turned to go back to his cell,
Defendant Watkins began to push him and tell the other correctional officers nearby to push Plaintiff
over the rail. A struggle ensued with Plaintiff trying to get back to his cell without going anywhere
-2-
near the rail. Plaintiff made it back to his cell. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Burns was “present
at this event.” (Id.)
Shortly after filing his complaint, Plaintiff filed a “Declaration of Facts” in which he
set forth additional factual allegations against Defendant Burns. Plaintiff alleges that on March 29
and 31, 2015 and on April 5, 2015, Defendant Burns told other correctional officers not to allow
Plaintiff to shower. Additionally, on April 7, 2015, Defendant Burns told Plaintiff “don’t even think
about getting in that water (i.e. shower).” (Decl. of Facts, docket #3, Page ID#45.) Additionally,
Plaintiff alleges that on April 2, 2015, Defendant Burns told a nurse that she should not see Plaintiff
concerning his complaints about Defendant Watkins poisoning him on March 26, 2015, because
Plaintiff was a snitch. The nurse went to Plaintiff’s cell but did not conduct an examination and
stated, “You[’re] still telling [on] staff.” (Id.) That same day, unit porters warned Plaintiff that
Defendant Burns and another correctional officer were talking about claiming that Plaintiff spit on
one of them while going to the shower, so that Defendant Burns and the other correctional officer
could “slam” Plaintiff. (Id.) Later, Plaintiff heard Defendant Burns tell a correctional officer to
“s[l]am Sango on his face and knock that [b]itches teeth out.” (Id.)
Plaintiff alleges a claim for retaliation. He also arguably alleges a claim under the
Eighth Amendment. As relief, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and declaratory and injunctive
relief.
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, 47 (1957)). While
a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s allegations must include more
-3-
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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. 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)).
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 alleges that on March 26, 2015, Defendant Wolffer escorted him to the
shower. Plaintiff makes no other allegations against Defendant Wolffer either in the complaint or
in the later filed Declaration of Facts.
-4-
As explained above, 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.
The Court must determine whether the complaint contains “enough facts to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.” Id. “[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.” Id. at 679 (quoting FED . R. CIV . P. 8(a)(2)).
Plaintiff’s sole allegation against Defendant Wolffer is that Defendant Wolffer
escorted him to the shower. Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant Wolffer engaged in any
actionable conduct. Consequently, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendant Wolffer.
Following initial review, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s retaliation and Eighth
Amendment claims against Defendants Watkins and Burns warrant service of the complaint.
Conclusion
Having conducted the review required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Court
determines that Defendants Wolffer 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 Defendant Watkins and Burns.
An Order consistent with this Opinion will be entered.
Dated: July 15, 2015
/s/ Gordon J. Quist
GORDON J. QUIST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-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?