Blevins #243981 v. Michigan Department of Corrections
Filing
7
OPINION ; signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker (Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
______
SCOTT BLEVINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 2:17-cv-170
Honorable Robert J. Jonker
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________/
OPINION
This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (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 against
Defendants Michigan Department of Corrections, Bill Schuette, Catherine Bauman, and Heidi E.
Washington. The Court will serve the complaint against Defendants Joseph Naeyaert, K. Mattson,
Unknown Kurth, and Unknown Cobb.
Discussion
I.
Factual allegations
Plaintiff is presently incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections
(MDOC) at the Oaks Correctional Facility (ECF) in Manistee, Manistee County, Michigan. The
events about which he complains, however, occurred at the Alger Correctional Facility (LMF) in
Munising, Alger County, Michigan. Plaintiff sues the Michigan Department of Corrections,
Resident Unit Manager Joseph Naeyaert, Unknown Parties #1 named as “Health Care Nurses and
P.A.,” Housing Unit Officer K. Mattson, Unit Officer Unknown Kurth, Cedar Unit Officer
Unknown Cobb, Michigan State Attorney General Bill Schuette, Warden Catherine Bauman, and
MDOC Director Heidi E. Washington.
Plaintiff claims that on November 9, 2016, he told Defendant Mattson that he could
not lock in the unit any longer because he was being forced to prostitute himself for gang members.
Defendant Mattson was only concerned with whether Plaintiff was going to return to his cell.
Plaintiff was forced to go to segregation for disobeying a direct order on two occasions in order to
get away from the assaults.
Plaintiff alleges that on August 31, 2017, he was told by his prospective cell mate,
inmate Flores, that Plaintiff could not lock with him because Plaintiff was transgender. Plaintiff
then told Defendant Naeyaert that he could not lock in his assigned cell because he was not wanted
and would be assaulted. Defendant Naeyaert asked Plaintiff if he was alright. Defendant Naeyaert
then told Plaintiff to go back to his cell and that Flores would not hurt him. Plaintiff complied.
On September 1, 2017, after being told several times by Flores to move, Plaintiff told Officer
Brennan that he needed to move to avoid being assaulted. Officer Brennan told Plaintiff to be
patient because the only open room was just as bad. Later that night, while Plaintiff was on the
2
small yard, a few of Flores’ “Latin King brothers” told Plaintiff if he did not get out of the room,
they would “fuck [him] up.” Plaintiff reported the incident to Officer Leffler and asked to go to
suicide watch. Plaintiff was taken to the dayroom and was subsequently placed in a suicide watch
cell.
After four days, Plaintiff spoke to psychologist Wood and explained the situation.
Wood told Plaintiff that he was going to release him back to the unit and attempt to get him into
another room. Once in the unit, Plaintiff asked Defendants Mattson and Cobb what room he had
been assigned. When Plaintiff was told the room number, he protested that he could not go there
because he would be assaulted or killed. Defendant Mattson told Plaintiff to turn around and cuff
up. Plaintiff was then escorted to the showers and locked in. Defendant Cobb stated, “Why don’t
you quit being such a pussy, fag, bitch and fight?” Plaintiff just shook his head. When prison
counselor Salo came to the unit, he asked Plaintiff what was wrong. Plaintiff explained that he
was trying to avoid being assaulted or killed. Salo said, “I don’t know what you’re talking about,”
and walked away. Plaintiff was eventually taken to suicide watch by Defendant Kurth and
Sergeant Nesberg.
While on suicide watch from September 2, 2017, to September 5, 2017, Plaintiff
was denied his thyroid medication. Plaintiff wrote to Defendants Washington, Bauman, and
Schuette to complain, to no avail. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as
injunctive relief.
3
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)).
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
4
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 fails to make specific factual allegations against Defendants Schuette,
Bauman, and Washington, other than his claim that they failed to conduct an investigation in
response to his 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 allege that Defendants Schuette, Bauman, and Washington engaged in any active
unconstitutional behavior. Accordingly, he fails to state a claim against them.
5
Conclusion
Having conducted the review required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the
Court determines that Defendants Michigan Department of Corrections, Bill Schuette, Catherine
Bauman, and Heidi E. Washington 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 will serve the complaint against
Joseph Naeyaert, K. Mattson, Unknown Kurth, and Unknown Cobb.1
An Order consistent with this Opinion will be entered.
Dated:
June 12, 2018
/s/ Robert J. Jonker
ROBERT J. JONKER
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1
The Court lacks sufficient information at this time to effect service upon Unknown Parties #1 named as “Health Care
Nurses and P.A.” Therefore, the court will not order the prison to provide copies for service on Unknown Parties #1.
If Plaintiff discovers the names of these individuals, he should file a motion to amend his complaint to include the
names.
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?