Miller #427602 v. Washington et al
Filing
4
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
NORTHERN DIVISION
VERNON KEVIN MILLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 2:16-cv-223
Honorable Gordon J. Quist
HEIDI WASHINGTON, 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, Plaintiff’s action will be dismissed for failure to state
a claim.
Factual Allegations
Plaintiff Vernon Kevin Miller, a state prisoner currently confined at the Marquette
Branch Prison (MBP), filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
Defendants MDOC Director Heidi Washington, Warden Catherine Bauman, MDOC Electrician Paul
Britton, and MDOC Corrections Officer Joseph Perala. Plaintiff alleges that on March 31, 2014,
he arrived at the Alger Correctional Facility (LMF) and was housed in cell B-137 of Birch Unit,
which is a segregation unit. When Plaintiff entered the cell, he noticed that it was very dirty, that
there were cleaning supplies next to the toilet, and that there were two holes in the walls with a
coaxial cable in one of them and three electric wires with black tape on them in the other. Plaintiff
told the officer who brought his lunch tray about the wires that were visible in the holes on the wall.
The officer responded that maintenance had already been informed and that there was a work order
on it. Later that day, the officer gave Plaintiff a cell inventory checklist, which Plaintiff filled out.
Plaintiff specifically noted on the form that there were no plastic or metal covers over the holes in
the wall.
On April 3, 2014, Plaintiff again complained about the condition of his cell. An
officer brought Plaintiff a cell inventory checklist, which Plaintiff refused to fill out because it did
not have his correct prisoner number on it. No one ever came to fix the lights or the holes in the
wall. Plaintiff’s request for a grievance form was denied by Corrections Officers Jaykka and
Phillipson. On April 11, 2014, Plaintiff wanted to know if the wires were active electric wires and
states that while he was testing the wires, a fire started which almost resulted in Plaintiff’s death.
Plaintiff was charged with arson and on November 6, 2014, had a competency
hearing and a preliminary examination regarding Plaintiff’s arson charge. During the preliminary
examination, Defendant Perala testified that it is not protocol at the prison to place a prisoner in a
cell with exposed wiring. Defendant Perala also testified during the preliminary examination that
plastic or metal outlet covers could have been flushed down the toilet. No plastic or metal outlet
covers were ever found.
-2-
Defendant Britton signed a statement that there was no electric power in the cell at
the time of the fire because there was no outlet and the wires were taped off. Defendant Britton also
testified that some cells do not have electricity available because the prisoner is on loss of privileges
or does not own a television or other electronic device. Plaintiff states that Defendant Britton’s
statement is clearly false, because if there was no electricity in Plaintiff’s cell, no fire could have
been started.
Plaintiff states that in his state criminal case, he had been planning to go to trial on
the arson charge, but his attorney belatedly filed a request for a fire expert. The trial court denied
the request, as well as Plaintiff’s motion to adjourn the trial, on November 25, 2015. Consequently,
Plaintiff pleaded guilty to the charge. Plaintiff claims that Defendants Bauman and Washington are
ultimately responsible for the conditions in Plaintiff’s cell.
Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment stating that the conditions of Plaintiff’s
confinement violated his constitutional rights. Plaintiff also seeks compensatory and punitive
damages against Defendants for the “7 years and 3 months to 20 years maximum time [Plaintiff
must] serve now” because of Defendants’ actions.
Discussion
I.
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,
-3-
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); Dominguez v.
Corr. Med. Servs., 555 F.3d 543, 549 (6th Cir. 2009). 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 claims that he was improperly charged and convicted with arson because the
conditions in his cell made it possible for him to start the fire. Plaintiff seeks damages for the
sentence he received. The federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and Plaintiff has the
burden of proving the Court’s jurisdiction. United States v. Horizon Healthcare, 160 F.3d 326, 329
-4-
(6th Cir. 1998). Even where subject matter jurisdiction is not raised by the parties, the Court must
consider the issue sua sponte. See City of Kenosha v. Bruno, 412 U.S. 507, 511 (1973); Norris v.
Schotten, 146 F.3d 314, 324 (6th Cir. 1998); Mickler v. Nimishillen & Tuscarawas Ry. Co., 13 F.3d
184, 189 (6th Cir. 1993).
This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims. A federal district
court has no authority to review final judgments of state-court judicial proceedings. District of
Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263
U.S. 413, 415–16 (1923). A loser in the state court may not be heard in the federal district court on
complaints of injuries by a state-court judgment rendered before the federal proceeding commenced.
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 283-84 (2005). “The pertinent
question in determining whether a federal district court is precluded under the Rooker–Feldman
doctrine from exercising subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim is whether the ‘source of the injury’
upon which plaintiff bases his federal claim is the state court judgment.” In re Cook, 551 F.3d 542,
548 (6th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, Plaintiff states that he wishes
to be compensated for the prison sentence he received as a result of his arson conviction. Therefore,
the claims asserted in Plaintiff’s complaint are barred by the Rooker–Feldman doctrine.
Conclusion
Having conducted the review required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Court
determines that Plaintiff’s action 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 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 v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 611
(6th Cir. 1997). For the same reasons that the Court dismisses the action, the Court discerns no
-5-
good-faith basis for an appeal. Should Plaintiff appeal this decision, the Court will assess the
$505.00 appellate filing fee pursuant to § 1915(b)(1), see McGore, 114 F.3d at 610-11, unless
Plaintiff is barred 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 $505.00 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: November 10, 2016
/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?