United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Terrance Wayne, Plaintiff, Pro se, MARQUETTE, MI.
For Daniel Heyns, Director, Brad Purves, Food Service Program Manager, Lloyd Rapelje, Warden, Defendants: Allan J. Soros, Michigan Department of Attorney General, Corrections Division, Lansing, MI.
MONA K. MAJZOUB, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. DISTRICT JUDGE LINDA V. PARKER.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MONA K. MAJZOUB, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Terrance Wayne, currently a prisoner at the Marquette Branch Prison in Marquette, Michigan, has filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against three individuals associated with the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC): (1) Daniel Heyns, Director of the MDOC; (2) Brad Purves, Food Service Program Manager for the MDOC; and (3) Lloyd Rapelje, Warden of the Saginaw Correctional Facility. (Docket no. 1. at 6-7.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are denying him a " basic human need, " (specifically, his right to a " healthy, safe, and adequate" diet) by providing only what Plaintiff calls " the Death Diet." ( See, e.g., id. at 13.) Plaintiff alleges that his claims arise under the Eighth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Id. at 16-22.) Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief on all counts, injunctive relief regarding the meal plans and nutritional needs of " aging" prisoners held by the MDOC, compensatory damages totaling $80, 000.00 jointly and severally from Defendants, and punitive damages in the amount of $10, 000.00 from each Defendant. (Id. at 24-26.) The Court has previously dismissed all of Plaintiff's claims except his Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Heyns and Purves. (Docket no. 26.)
Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to for Summary Judgment. (Docket no. 23.) Plaintiff filed a Response. (Docket no. 28.) Defendant filed a Reply. (Docket no. 29.) And Plaintiff then filed a Surreply and a Second Response (docket nos. 31 and 33) along with several affidavits and letters (docket nos. 32, 36, 37, and 39). All pretrial matters have been referred to the undersigned for consideration. (Docket nos. 7 and 27.) The Court has reviewed the pleadings, dispenses with a hearing pursuant to E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(f)(2), and issues this Report and Recommendation.
For the reasons that follow, the undersigned recommends granting Defendants' Motion to for Summary Judgment (docket no. 23). Additionally, Defendants' outstanding Motion (docket no. 30), and Plaintiff's outstanding Motions (docket nos. 28, 34, 35, and 38) should be denied as moot. The Court should, therefore, dismiss this matter in its entirety.
Plaintiff alleges that he is a mentally ill,  fifty-year-old prisoner who has spent more than half of his life in prison. (Docket no. 1 at 8.) Plaintiff contends that " [f]or over 40 years prior to 2010 the MDOC provided all its prisoners a State Wide '4' Cycle Menu, " which Plaintiff alleges was nutritionally sound. (Id.) Plaintiff further contends that while he was incarcerated during this time, his " over-all health was good" and that he " maintained his physical, biological and psychological health through adequate, effective and vigorous exercise routines on a daily basis . . . from the energy, stamina and nutrition provided by [these meals]." (Id. at 9.) Plaintiff asserts that " [g]oing into the year 2010, defendant Heyns . . . claimed a 'Budget Funding Crisis' [and] eliminated the . . . 4 Cycle Menu." (Id. at 10.) Thus, Plaintiff alleges, Defendants Heyns and Purves " created and enforced the new and current MDOC State Wide '2' Cycle Menu, " which Plaintiff asserts contains little (if any) nutritional value and smaller portion sizes. (Id.) Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that the new menu consists of " unwholesome, inadequate, unnutritional, low caloric, low protein, vitamin deficient, poor quality, biologically damaging, physical sustenance deficient, unhealthy, and unsafe fare, processed and byproduct infused adolescent child size portioned foods." (Id. at 11.) Plaintiff notes, however, that the foods originally included in the 4 Cycle Menu are now available for purchase from an outside vendor. (Id. at 14.)
Plaintiff alleges that the " Death Diet" has caused (1) weight loss, (2) rectal bleeding, (3) hard stool, (4) " stomach-bowel cramp pain, " (5) shoulder pain, (6) " muscle loss stagnation and inability of muscle growth, " (7) " hunger and growling pains one hour after 98% of all meals, " (8) inability to perform any adequate, effective, and vigorous levels of daily exercise, " (9) instant fatigue, nausea, and quick exertion following any physical activity, (10) high cholesterol, and (11) " psychological exacerbations of major depression, racing and common suicidal thoughts, hostile auditory hallucinations, severe mood disorder of anger and crying spells, and emotional damage." (Id. at 12.) Plaintiff further notes that he has a " family history of heart disease, colon cancer, diabetes, and suicide" and that he has a " very strong desire to prevent these diseases from happening and being induced by the defendants." (Id.) Plaintiff contends that the potatoes and bread in the " Death Diet" will increase blood-sugar levels in diabetic prisoners and interfere with insulin treatments. (Id.)
Plaintiff alleges that " the crux of the matter" is that he has a desire to live another 25 years and reach the age of 75--" the average life span in the U.S.A." (Id. at 13.) He argues that he will not be able to do so because Defendants are " denying [him] . . . his basic human needs" by " not providing the 'minimal civilized measures of lifes (sic) necessities' and by not 'evolving with the standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society' regarding 'proper diet, good health, exercise and longevity." (Id.) Plaintiff asserts that " [f]ederal laws must be amended to fit the year 2013, " with specific reference to Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994), and Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981). Plaintiff contends that Defendant Heyns implemented the " Death Diet" for financial gain because he is now selling the 4 Cycle Menu for the benefit of the MDOC. (Id. at 14.)
Plaintiff asserts that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated where the " Death Diet" is " substantially a serious and life threatening risk of harm now and . . . in the near future." (Id. at 16.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are aware of this risk because of " national public information" and " through prisoner grievances regarding proper diet, good health, exercise and longevity of life, " but they have " failed to take any corrective action." (Id. at 17.)
B. Summary Judgment Standard
" The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A moving party may meet that burden " by 'showing' -- that is, pointing out to the district court -- that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 ...