Hollmon #222991 v. Woods et al
Filing
4
OPINION ; signed by Judge R. Allan Edgar (Judge R. Allan Edgar, cam)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
DAVID HOLLMON,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:14-cv-196
v.
Honorable R. Allan Edgar
JEFFREY WOODS 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 Woods, Steive, Lamb and Shelton. The Court will serve the
complaint against Defendants Brotoski, Corizon Medical Services and LaPlaunt.
Discussion
I.
Factual allegations
Plaintiff presently is incarcerated at the Chippewa Correctional Facility (URF). In
his pro se complaint, he sues Corizon Medical Services and the following URF employees: Warden
Jeffrey Woods, Dr. Michael1 Brotoski, Chief Medical Officer Dr. Jeffrey Steive, Healthcare Unit
Manager (HUM) Melissa LaPlaunt, Assistant Regional Healthcare Administrator Patricia Lamb, and
Healthcare Administrator Joanne Shelton for violating his Eighth Amendment rights.
Plaintiff complains that Dr. Brotoski removed him from his seizure medicine on
February 19, 2014, for failing to go to the medical call-out line. Plaintiff explained to Dr. Brotoski
that he did not go to the call-out line because it was too cold to stand outside and the cold aggravated
his asthma. Dr. Brotoski, however, still denied Plaintiff’s medication. Since being taken off his
seizure medicine, Plaintiff asserts that he has migraine headaches, dizziness, black-outs and seizures.
Plaintiff states that he has not been seen by Dr. Brotoski since he was taken off his medication.
Plaintiff asserts that he filed complaints with Corizon Medical Services, Chief
Medical Officer Steive and Healthcare Administrator Shelton to investigate the denial of his seizure
medication to no avail. Plaintiff also claims that Warden Woods and Healthcare Administrator
Lamb were both aware of Plaintiff’s medical situation through grievances Plaintiff filed but refused
to assist Plaintiff. Plaintiff further states that while HUM LaPlaunt knew of Dr. Brotoski’s actions,
LaPlaunt refused to do anything about Plaintiff’s medical care despite numerous complaints from
1
Plaintiff names Defendant Brotoski as Michale. The correct spelling of Defendant’s first name is Michael.
The Court will use the correct spelling of Defendant Brotoski’s name herein.
-2-
Plaintiff and his family members. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that LaPlaunt “refuse[d] to address
the situation or inform the doctor of [Plaintiff’s] complaint[s].” (Compl., docket #1, Page ID#5.)
For relief, Plaintiff requests 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, 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
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)).
-3-
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).
A.
Supervisory Liability
Plaintiff fails to make specific factual allegations against Defendants Chief Medical
Officer Steive, Healthcare Administrator Shelton, Warden Woods and Assistant Regional Healthcare
Administrator Lamb, other than his claim that they failed to conduct an investigation in response to
his complaints and 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
-4-
allege that Defendants Steive, Shelton, Woods and Lamb engaged in any active unconstitutional
behavior. Accordingly, he fails to state a claim against them.
B.
Eighth Amendment
The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to warrant service of
his Eighth Amendment claim on Defendants Brotoski, Corizon Medical Services and LaPlaunt.
Conclusion
Having conducted the review required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Court
determines that Defendants Woods, Steive, Lamb and Shelton 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 Brotoski, Corizon Medical Services and LaPlaunt.
An Order consistent with this Opinion will be entered.
Dated: 10/30/2014
/s/ R. Allan Edgar
R. ALLAN EDGAR
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?