Malott #467434 v. Hill et al
Filing
7
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
MICHAEL SCOTT MALOTT,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:15-cv-1092
v.
Honorable Gordon J. Quist
UNKNOWN HILL 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 Washington, Mackie, and Dunn. The Court will serve the
complaint against the remaining Defendants.
Discussion
I.
Factual allegations
Plaintiff Michael Malott presently is incarcerated with the Michigan Department of
Corrections (MDOC) and housed at the Oaks Correctional Facility (ECF). He sues MDOC Director
Heidi Washington and the following ECF officials: Sergeants (unknown) Hill, (unknown) Yount,
(unknown) Baker, (unknown) Mitchell, and (unknown) Biddle; Lieutenants (unknown) McKlindon,
(unknown) Schreiber, and (unknown) Riggs; Warden Thomas Mackie; Resident Unit Manager
(unknown) Thomas; Nurse A. Briske; and Correctional Officers (unknown) Aron, (unknown)
Kopfman, (unknown) Bladzak, (unknown) Black, (unknown) Guzikowski, (unknown) Dunn,
(unknown) Homrich, and (unknown) Farago.
Plaintiff’s complaint centers around his treatment at ECF between October 2 and
October 7, 2015, during the time he was involved in settling litigation against officials at the
Marquette Branch Prison who had failed to protect him from a gang assault after he had provided
information to Ionia County detectives about the stabbing of another prisoner. See Malott v.
Marshall et al., No. 2:12-cv-405 (W.D. Mich.). Plaintiff contends that Defendants Hill, Yount,
Baker, Mitchell, Biddle, McKlindon, Riggs, Thomas, Briske, Aron, Kopfman, Bladzak, Black
Guzikowski, Homrich and Farago engaged in following malicious acts, in retaliation for Plaintiff’s
grievances and lawsuit: taunting and threatening him; spitting in and putting pubic hairs in his food;
refusing to provide him meals; allowing his cell to stay flooded from toilet overflow for a full day;
pushing his property into the flooded water; putting him in top-of-bed restraints without cause;
holding his nose and covering his mouth while he was restrained; punching him in the face, stomach
and genitals; leaving him in an extremely cold cell with no blankets, sheets or clothing; and refusing
to treat his medication overdose. On his way to a telephone conference with the federal court on
-2-
October 5, Defendants Biddle Yount, Thomas, Guzikowski and Black threatened to kill him, to spit
in his food, and to throw away his legal property if he wrote a grievance against them or reported
his treatment to the court. On October 6, 2015, on his way to another telephone conference with the
Court, Defendants Baker and Kopfman threatened to kill him and to tell other prisoners that he was
a snitch if he filed a grievance against Defendants for their various cruel and retaliatory acts.1
Plaintiff alleges that he wrote to Defendant Washington on October 4, 2015,
explaining the assaults, beating, threats, and denials of food. He asked to be transferred for his
safety. Washington did not respond. Plaintiff contends that both MDOC Director Washington and
Warden Mackie are responsible for the running of the prison and therefore responsible for his
treatment.
Plaintiff seeks nominal, compensatory and punitive damages, together with a series
of injunctions, including transfer to another facility.
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
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
1
According to the docket sheet of Case No. 2:12-cv-405, telephone settlement conferences were held on
September 21, 2015 (ECF No. 143) and October 6, 2015 (ECF No. 146). The court issued a notice of the October 6
settlement conference on October 5, 2015. The parties submitted a stipulation and proposed order of dismissal on
October 12, 2015, which was granted on October 13, 2015 (ECF No. 148).
-3-
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).
It is a basic pleading essential that a plaintiff attribute factual allegations to particular
defendants. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 544 (holding that, in order to state a claim, a plaintiff must
make sufficient allegations to give a defendant fair notice of the claim). Where a person is named
as a defendant without an allegation of specific conduct, the complaint is subject to dismissal, even
under the liberal construction afforded to pro se complaints. See Frazier v. Michigan, 41 F. App’x
762, 764 (6th Cir. 2002) (dismissing the plaintiff’s claims where the complaint did not allege with
-4-
any degree of specificity which of the named defendants were personally involved in or responsible
for each alleged violation of rights); Griffin v. Montgomery, No. 00-3402, 2000 WL 1800569, at *2
(6th Cir. Nov. 30, 2000) (requiring allegations of personal involvement against each defendant);
Rodriguez v. Jabe, No. 90-1010, 1990 WL 82722, at *1 (6th Cir. June 19, 1990) (“Plaintiff’s claims
against those individuals are without a basis in law as the complaint is totally devoid of allegations
as to them which would suggest their involvement in the events leading to his injuries.”); see also
Wright v. Smith, 21 F.3d 496, 501 (2d Cir. 1994); Krych v. Hvass, 83 F. App’x 854, 855 (8th Cir.
2003); Potter v. Clark, 497 F.2d 1206, 1207 (7th Cir. 1974); Williams v. Hopkins, No. 06-14064,
2007 WL 2572406, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 6, 2007); McCoy v. McBride, No. 3:96-cv-227RP, 1996
WL 697937, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 5, 1996); Eckford-El v. Toombs, 760 F. Supp. 1267, 1272-73
(W.D. Mich. 1991). Plaintiff fails to even to mention Defendant Dunn in the body of his complaint.
His allegations against Defendant Dunn therefore fall short of the minimal pleading standards under
FED . R. CIV . P. 8 (requiring “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief”).
In addition, Plaintiff fails to make specific factual allegations against Defendants
Washington and Mackie, other than his claim that they failed to properly supervise their
subordinates or failed to respond to his grievances or complaints. 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
-5-
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 Washington and
Mackie engaged in any active unconstitutional behavior. Accordingly, he fails to state a claim
against them.
Upon initial review, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has made sufficient factual
allegations to warrant service of the complaint on the remaining Defendants.
Conclusion
Having conducted the review required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Court
determines that Defendants Washington, Mackie, and Dunn 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 the remaining Defendants.
An Order consistent with this Opinion will be entered.
Dated: November 6, 2015
/s/ Gordon J. Quist
GORDON J. QUIST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-6-
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?