Coleman-Young #757232 v. Bonn et al

Filing 6

OPINION; signed by Magistrate Judge Phillip J. Green (jkw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
JARVUS COLEMAN-YOUNG,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:25-cv-58
Honorable Phillip J. Green

DALE BONN, et al.,
Defendants.

____________________________/
OPINION
This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The Court has granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate
order. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Plaintiff consented to proceed in all matters in this action under the
jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 1, PageID.5.)
This case is presently before the Court for preliminary review under the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (PLRA), pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). The Court is
required to conduct this initial review prior to the service of the complaint. See In re
Prison Litig. Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131, 1131, 1134 (6th Cir. 1997); McGore v.
Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604–05 (6th Cir. 1997). Service of the complaint on the
named defendants is of particular significance in defining a putative defendant’s
relationship to the proceedings.

“An individual or entity named as a defendant is not obliged to engage in
litigation unless notified of the action, and brought under a court’s authority, by
formal process.” Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344,
347 (1999). “Service of process, under longstanding tradition in our system of justice,
is fundamental to any procedural imposition on a named defendant.” Id. at 350.
“[O]ne becomes a party officially, and is required to take action in that capacity, only
upon service of a summons or other authority-asserting measure stating the time
within which the party served must appear and defend.” Id. (citations omitted). That
is, “[u]nless a named defendant agrees to waive service, the summons continues to
function as the sine qua non directing an individual or entity to participate in a civil
action or forgo procedural or substantive rights.” Id. at 351. Therefore, the PLRA,
by requiring courts to review and even resolve a plaintiff’s claims before service,
creates a circumstance where there may only be one party to the proceeding—the
plaintiff—at the district court level and on appeal. See, e.g., Conway v. Fayette Cnty.
Gov’t, 212 F. App’x 418 (6th Cir. 2007) (“Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the district
court screened the complaint and dismissed it without prejudice before service was
made upon any of the defendants . . . [such that] . . . only [the plaintiff] [wa]s a party
to this appeal.”).
Here, Plaintiff has consented to a United States Magistrate Judge conducting
all proceedings in this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). That statute provides that
“[u]pon the consent of the parties, a full-time United States magistrate judge . . . may
conduct any or all proceedings . . . and order the entry of judgment in the case . . . .”

2

28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Because the named Defendants have not yet been served, the
undersigned concludes that they are not presently parties whose consent is required
to permit the undersigned to conduct a preliminary review under the PLRA, in the
same way they are not parties who will be served with or given notice of this opinion.
See Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532 (5th Cir. 1995) (“The record does not contain
a consent from the defendants[; h]owever, because they had not been served, they
were not parties to this action at the time the magistrate entered judgment.”). 1
Under the PLRA, 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.

1 But see Coleman v. Lab. & Indus. Rev. Comm’n of Wis., 860 F.3d 461, 471 (7th Cir.

2017) (concluding that, when determining which parties are required to consent to
proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), “context
matters” and the context the United States Supreme Court considered in Murphy
Bros. was nothing like the context of a screening dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)); Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500,
503–04 (9th Cir. 2017) (relying on Black’s Law Dictionary for the definition of
“parties” and not addressing Murphy Bros.); Burton v. Schamp, 25 F.4th 198, 207
n.26 (3d Cir. 2022) (premising its discussion of “the term ‘parties’ solely in relation to
its meaning in Section 636(c)(1), and . . . not tak[ing] an opinion on the meaning of
‘parties’ in other contexts”).
3

Discussion
Factual Allegations
Plaintiff is presently incarcerated with the Michigan Department of
Corrections (MDOC) at the Carson City Correctional Facility (DRF) in Carson City,
Montcalm County, Michigan.

The events about which he complains, however,

occurred when Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Ionia Correctional Facility (ICF) in
Ionia, Ionia County, Michigan.

Plaintiff sues ICF Warden Dale Bonn and ICF

Assistant Deputy Warden of Housing Unknown Guilford.
Plaintiff alleges that on September 11, 2024, he filed a grievance concerning
inadequate ventilation in his cell, which was located in ICF’s Housing Unit 5.
(Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.3.)

Plaintiff contends that there was no “active”

ventilation because the only window was “sealed [and] inoperable.” (Id.) Plaintiff
asserts further that there was no “passive” ventilation because there was “only 1 vent
for the exhaust of impure air [and] NO vent for the delivery [and] supply of FRESH
air.” (Id.) According to Plaintiff, the exhaust vent was also “clogged [and] dirty.” (Id.)
Plaintiff goes on to suggest that he was discriminated against because other
inmates in a different housing unit, which Plaintiff contends was “structurally built
exactly the same,” were housed in cells with two vents, “1 to supp[l]y fresh air [and]
1 to exhaust impure air.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that the lack of adequate ventilation
exacerbated his frequent severe headaches, sleep apnea, and lung and chest pain.
(Id.)
Plaintiff avers that as Warden, Defendant Bonn has “prior knowledge of this
structural setup [and] violation, including the discriminatory practice of only giving
4

Level 5 inmates housed in Housing Unit 1 access to adequate ventilation.” (Id.,
PageID.4.) He contends that Defendant Guilford is “directly in charge of housing,
violations, [and] responsibilities” and had prior knowledge as well. (Id.)
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff asserts violations of his Eighth Amendment
rights.

(Id., PageID.3.)

Fourteenth

Amendment

Plaintiff’s complaint can also be construed to assert
equal

protection

claims

given

his

reference

to

“discrimination.” (Id.) Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief in the form of an immediate
transfer from ICF, as well as compensatory and punitive damages. (Id., PageID.5.)
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. Id.; 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 well5

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)); 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)(ii)).
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).
Based upon the foregoing factual allegations, Plaintiff asserts Eighth
Amendment violations. The Court has also liberally construed Plaintiff’s complaint
to assert Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claims.
A.

Claim for Injunctive Relief

As noted above, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief in the form of an immediate
transfer from ICF. Plaintiff, however, has received that relief as he is now
incarcerated at DRF. In light of that fact, Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief is
moot. See Kensu v. Haigh, 87 F.3d 172, 175 (6th Cir. 1996) (holding that a prisonerplaintiff’s claims for injunctive and declaratory relief became moot when the prisoner
was transferred from the prison about which he complained).
6

B.

Eighth Amendment Claims

The Eighth Amendment imposes a constitutional limitation on the power of
the states to punish those convicted of crimes. Punishment may not be “barbarous,”
nor may it contravene society’s “evolving standards of decency.” Rhodes v. Chapman,
452 U.S. 337, 345–46 (1981). The Amendment, therefore, prohibits conduct by prison
officials that involves the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Ivey v. Wilson,
832 F.2d 950, 954 (6th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (quoting Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 346). The
deprivation alleged must result in the denial of the “minimal civilized measure of
life’s necessities.” Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347; see also Wilson v. Yaklich, 148 F.3d 596,
600–01 (6th Cir. 1998). The Eighth Amendment is only concerned with “deprivations
of essential food, medical care, or sanitation” or “other conditions intolerable for
prison confinement.” Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 348 (citation omitted). Moreover, “[n]ot
every unpleasant experience a prisoner might endure while incarcerated constitutes
cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment.” Ivey,
832 F.2d at 954. “Routine discomfort is ‘part of the penalty that criminal offenders
pay for their offenses against society.’” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992)
(quoting Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347). Therefore, “extreme deprivations are required to
make out a conditions-of-confinement claim.” Id.
In order for a prisoner to prevail on an Eighth Amendment claim, he must
show that he faced a sufficiently serious risk to his health or safety and that the
defendant official acted with “‘deliberate indifference’ to [his] health or safety.”
Mingus v. Butler, 591 F.3d 474, 479–80 (6th Cir. 2010) (citing Farmer v. Brennan,
511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994)) (applying deliberate indifference standard to medical
7

claims); see also Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35 (1993) (applying deliberate
indifference standard to conditions of confinement claims).

The deliberate-

indifference standard includes both objective and subjective components. Farmer,
511 U.S. at 834; Helling, 509 U.S. at 35–37. To satisfy the objective prong, an inmate
must show “that he is incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of
serious harm.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. Under the subjective prong, an official must
“know[ ] of and disregard[ ] an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Id. at 837.
“[I]t is enough that the official acted or failed to act despite his knowledge of a
substantial risk of serious harm.” Id. at 842. “It is, indeed, fair to say that acting or
failing to act with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm to a
prisoner is the equivalent of recklessly disregarding that risk.” Id. at 836. “[P]rison
officials who actually knew of a substantial risk to inmate health or safety may be
found free from liability if they responded reasonably to the risk, even if the harm
ultimately was not averted.” Id. at 844.
As set forth above, Plaintiff bases his Eighth Amendment claims on the
inadequate ventilation he allegedly experienced while incarcerated at ICF. Plaintiff
asserts that his cell only had one vent, and that the vent was clogged and dirty.
(Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.3.)

Plaintiff also contends that the inadequate

ventilation exacerbated his frequent headaches, sleep apnea, and lung and chest
pain. (Id.)
In extreme circumstances, courts have found that inadequate ventilation may
result in a sufficiently serious risk to prisoner safety under the Eighth Amendment.

8

See, e.g., White v. Monohan, 326 F. App’x 385 (7th Cir. 2009) (reversing district court
dismissal of claim alleging that inadequate ventilation permitted temperatures to
reach 110 degrees during the summer months); Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323 (5th Cir.
2004) (finding that the Eighth Amendment was violated by a ventilation system that
allowed summer temperatures to average in the 90s, unless prison officials took
measures to ameliorate the heat by providing fans, ice water and daily showers);
Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir.1996) (allowing a prisoner’s claim that his cell
was “[s]aturated with the [f]umes of [f]eces (thrown by some inmates), the smell of
urine and vomit as well as other stale body odors” to proceed).
However, absent such extreme conditions raising serious risks to prisoner
health, courts routinely have determined that claims concerning ventilation are
insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim. See, e.g., Vasquez v. Frank, 290 F.
App’x 927 (7th Cir. 2008) (holding that ventilation that allegedly caused dizziness,
migraines, nasal congestion, nose bleeds and difficulty breathing did not rise to the
level of an Eighth Amendment violation); Chandler v. Crosby, 379 F.3d 1278 (11th
Cir. 2004) (citing cases and concluding that a ventilation system that allowed summer
temperatures to average eighty-five or eighty-six degrees during the day and eighty
degrees at night was not sufficiently extreme to violate the Eighth Amendment,
where such temperatures were expected and tolerated by the general public in
Florida); Ingram v. Jewell, 94 F. App’x 271, 273 (6th Cir. 2004) (upholding the
dismissal of a prisoner’s claim that the confiscation of his extension cord, which was
needed to operate a fan, deprived him of constitutionally adequate ventilation),

9

overruled on other grounds by Maben v. Thelen, 887 F.3d 252 (6th Cir. 2018);
Bourrage v. McFarland, No. 99-60923, 2001 WL 185034 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2001)
(upholding dismissal of a prisoner’s claim that inadequate ventilation had led to his
prescription for an Albuterol Inhaler); Jasman v. Schmidt, 4 F. App’x 233, 235–36
(6th Cir. 2001) (affirming dismissal of a claim that the weatherstripping on the doors
of the cells at a Michigan prison prevented air circulation and resulted in inadequate
ventilation); Davis v. Crowley, No. 00-1475, 2000 WL 1871891 (6th Cir. Dec. 12, 2000)
(concluding that a plaintiff’s allegations that a ventilation system smelled strongly of
gas did not allege a sufficiently serious harm where, despite his allegations that the
fumes caused him to experience shortness of breath and watery eyes, the plaintiff
failed to allege a substantial risk of serious harm); Thompson v. Cnty. of Medina, 29
F.3d 238 (6th Cir.1994) (upholding a dismissal of pretrial detainees’ claim that a jail
had inadequate ventilation); King v. Berghuis, No.1:10-cv-57, 2010 WL 565373, at *3
(W.D. Mich. Feb. 13, 2010) (dismissing prisoners’ claim alleging that ventilation
system moves less than 10 cubic feet of air and caused headaches).
Here, Plaintiff’s allegations fail to rise to the level of an objectively serious
deprivation. As an initial matter, “[t]he Eighth Amendment does not guarantee a
certain type of ventilation system or a certain rate of air exchange.” Bolton v. Goord,
992 F. Supp. 604, 628 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). Plaintiff’s allegations, at most, suggest routine
discomforts. Although Plaintiff contends that the allegedly inadequate ventilation
exacerbated his headaches and sleep apnea, these are similar to the types of
discomforts that courts, as set forth above, have concluded do not rise to the level of

10

a substantial risk of serious harm. While the Court is sympathetic to the fact that
Plaintiff’s conditions were exacerbated while he was incarcerated at ICF, Plaintiff’s
complaint fails to allege the existence of objectively inadequate conditions.
Moreover, Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient for purposes of the subjective
prong of the Eighth Amendment inquiry. Plaintiff suggests that Defendants, as
Warden and Assistant Deputy Warden at ICF, had prior knowledge of the inadequate
ventilation and that they were in charge of housing issues. (Compl., ECF No. 1,
PageID.4.) Plaintiff also sets forth that he submitted a grievance concerning the
issue. (Id., PageID.3.) Plaintiff, however, fails to set forth any facts suggesting that
Defendants were aware of Plaintiff’s grievance or that they were personally aware
that the ventilation system was exacerbating Plaintiff’s conditions. To the extent
that Plaintiff faults Defendants for not adequately responding to his grievance,
§ 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).
To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendants liable because of their
supervisory positions at ICF, 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. 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

11

(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).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has set forth the
minimum required to constitute active conduct by a supervisory official:
“[A] supervisory official’s failure to supervise, control or train the
offending individual is not actionable unless the supervisor either
encouraged the specific incident of misconduct or in some other way
directly participated in it.” Shehee, 199 F.3d at 300 (emphasis added)
(internal quotation marks omitted). We have interpreted this standard
to mean that “at a minimum,” the plaintiff must show that the
defendant “at least implicitly authorized, approved, or knowingly
acquiesced in the unconstitutional conduct of the offending officers.”
Peatross v. City of Memphis, 818 F.3d 233, 242 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting Shehee, 199
F.3d at 300); see also Copeland v. Machulis, 57 F.3d 476, 481 (6th Cir. 1995).
Here, Plaintiff fails to allege any facts suggesting that Defendants encouraged
or condoned the conduct of his subordinates, or authorized, approved, or knowingly
acquiesced in the conduct.

Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations of supervisory

responsibility are insufficient to show that Defendants were personally involved in
the alleged violations of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights for the reasons set forth
above. See, e.g., Grinter, 532 F.3d at 576; Greene, 310 F.3d at 899; Summers, 368
F.3d at 888. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment
claims will be dismissed.
C.

Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Claims

The Court has construed Plaintiff’s complaint to assert Fourteenth
Amendment equal protection claims premised upon his allegation that he has been
12

discriminated against because other inmates of the same custody level that are
housed in a different housing unit at ICF are housed in cells with two vents. (Compl.,
ECF No. 1, PageID.3.)
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that a
state may not “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws,” which is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be
treated alike. U.S. Const., amend. XIV; City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473
U.S. 432, 439 (1985).

To state an equal protection claim, Plaintiff must show

“intentional and arbitrary discrimination” by the state; that is, he must show that he
“has been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that
there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment.” Vill. of Willowbrook v.
Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000).
The threshold element of an equal protection claim is disparate treatment.
Scarbrough v. Morgan Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 470 F.3d 250, 260 (6th Cir. 2006). Further,
“‘[s]imilarly situated’ is a term of art—a comparator . . . must be similar in ‘all
relevant respects.’” Paterek v. Vill. of Armada, 801 F.3d 630, 650 (6th Cir. 2015)
(quoting United States v. Green, 654 F.3d 637, 651 (6th Cir. 2011)).
In this case, Plaintiff fails to allege facts showing that the other inmates were
similarly situated in all relevant respects.

Although Plaintiff states that these

inmates were assigned to the same custody level as him, his claim rests on conclusory
allegations of discrimination.

Plaintiff fails to allege any facts suggesting that

Defendants intentionally treated him differently from others similarly situated.

13

Conclusory allegations of unconstitutional conduct such as these without specific
factual allegations fail to state a claim under § 1983. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678;
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Furthermore, even viewing Plaintiff’s equal protection
claim as a class-of-one claim, the Court would reach the same conclusion because
Plaintiff’s equal protection claims are wholly conclusory, and he has alleged no facts
that plausibly show that the others were similarly situated in all relevant respects.
Accordingly, the Court will dismiss any purported Fourteenth Amendment equal
protection claims.
Conclusion
Having conducted the review required by the PLRA, the Court determines that
Plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, under 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c).
The Court must next decide whether an appeal of this action would be in good
faith within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See McGore, 114 F.3d at 611.
Although the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s claims are properly dismissed, the
Court does not conclude that any issue Plaintiff might raise on appeal would be
frivolous. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). Accordingly, the
Court does not certify that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. Should
Plaintiff appeal this decision, the Court will assess the $605.00 appellate filing fee
pursuant to § 1915(b)(1), see McGore, 114 F.3d at 610–11, unless Plaintiff is barred

14

from proceeding in forma pauperis, e.g., by the “three-strikes” rule of § 1915(g). If he
is barred, he will be required to pay the $605.00 appellate filing fee in one lump sum.
This is a dismissal as described by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
A judgment consistent with this opinion will be entered.

Dated: March 6, 2025

/s/ Phillip J. Green
PHILLIP J. GREEN
United States Magistrate Judge

15