United States District Court, Western District of Michigan, Southern Division
JANET T. NEFF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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 because the allegations either fail to state a claim or are frivolous.
Plaintiff presently is incarcerated at the Macomb Correctional Facility (MRF) but complains of events that also occurred at the Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility (MTU). In his pro se complaint, Plaintiff sues Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) Director Daniel H. Heyns, MDOC Health Director M. Davis, MTU Warden DeWayne Burton, MTU former Warden C. Stoddard,  MRF Warden Unknown Romanowskey, MTU Deputy Warden Shawn Young, MRF Deputy Warden Unknown Scott, MTU Psychiatrist Armando Santiago, MTU Nurse Sherry Unknown Party #1 (Nurse Sherry), MTU Nurse Mark Unknown Party #2 (Nurse Mark) and MTU Food Service Director Unknown Rockefeller.
Plaintiff first alleges that certain Defendants have experimented on his body. Plaintiff complains that MDOC Director Heyns and MTU Warden Burton experimented on Plaintiff’s brain, as follows (verbatim):
[T]hey took the ureter from the end that go to my bladder and carry it up to my brain. There pressure in the urinary system and inside the glomerulus that forces fluid out of the blood through its leaky capillary walls, waters, salts, and other small molecules go through ureter that carry water like urine to my brain. And it waters my brain down every so often that I can feel run down my brain. I don’t know why I feel this seriously sensation over my brain and thats how I know they gave me meningtis.
(Compl., docket #1, Page ID#5.) Plaintiff further claims that Heyns and Burton allowed MTU Deputy Warden Young to experiment on Plaintiff by placing some kind of substance in the shower that coats a person’s skin so when Plaintiff exercises, his sweat glands do not work. (Id., Page ID#11.) Moreover, Plaintiff states that Heyns and MRF Warden Romanowskey allowed MRF Deputy Warden Scott to “experiment on me by appl[ying] pressure to my ear in a way that put’s tremendous pain to my right ear and [one-half] of my face.” (Id.)
Plaintiff also complains that MDOC Director Heyns and MTU Warden Burton allowed MTU Deputy Warden Young to expose Plaintiff, and other prisoners,  to “foreign-born resident[s] taking home in MDOC facilit[ies]. . . . There is a lot of them and little one[s] too. And one hurt my hand in my cell. They [are] black like the black man in America.” (Id., Page ID#7.)
Plaintiff further raises several claims concerning the food served at MTU. Plaintiff first alleges that MDOC Director Heyns, MTU Warden Burton and MTU former Warden Stoddard allowed MTU Deputy Warden Young to place substances that cause cancer and a hole in a person’s stomach in Plaintiff’s dining hall food and in the food that Plaintiff purchased from the commissary. Plaintiff also complains that Defendants Heyns, Burton and Stoddard permitted Young to have food service place an “oily substance” in the dining hall food and in the food Plaintiff purchased from the commissary so that the blood flow in Plaintiff’s veins slowed down. (Id., Page ID#9.) As a result, Plaintiff complains that he gained weight. After Plaintiff was transferred to the Macomb Correctional Facility, Plaintiff complains that Defendants Heyns and MRF Warden Romanowskey allowed MRF Deputy Warden Scott to put a “hot substance” in his vegan meals. (Id., Page ID#10.)
Plaintiff further complains that MTU Nurses Sherry and Mark injected Risperidoneinto his arm muscle so that Plaintiff was swollen for days and “when [he moved his] biceps, [his whole] arm fe[lt] like it [was] going to collapse and pain [ran] all the way [down] to the tendons when my arm or biceps contract[ed]” in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. (Compl., Page ID##17, 19.) After Plaintiff wrote grievances on Nurses Sherry and Mark, Plaintiff alleges that they retaliated by continuing to administer the injections in Plaintiff’s arm muscle in violation of his First Amendment rights. Plaintiff also wrote to MDOC Health Director M. Davis about MTU Nurses Sherry and Mark to no avail.
Plaintiff complains that, after he filed four lawsuits in federal court, MTU Deputy Warden Young placed “two substances that ke[pt] [Plaintiff] from eating in the chow hall” in his food, in violation of his First Amendment rights. (Id., Page ID#20.) Plaintiff also alleges that Young had Food Service Director Rockefeller “perform damnable acts on chow hall food” in violation of his First Amendment rights. (Id.) Even though other inmates have brought food to him, Plaintiff alleges that he has lost over thirty pounds and experiences stomach pain and headaches from not eating in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights.
Reading Plaintiff’s complaint liberally, see Haines, 404 U.S. at 520, Plaintiff also alleges that (1) MDOC Director Heyns and MTU Warden Burton engaged in a conspiracy with Psychiatrist Santiago to diagnose and treat Plaintiff as mentally ill to cover up the wrongdoing by the MDOC and mental health individuals; and (2) MDOC Director Heyns, MTU Warden Burton and MTU Deputy Young engaged in a conspiracy by instructing MTU Nurses Sherry and Mark to torture Plaintiff by giving him shots.
For relief, Plaintiff requests monetary damages.
I. Frivolous Claims
A claim may be dismissed as frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196, 1198 (6th Cir.1990). Claims that lack an arguable or rational basis in law include claims for which the defendants are clearly entitled to immunity and claims of infringement of a legal interest which clearly does not exist; claims that lack an arguable or rational basis in fact describe fantastic or delusional scenarios. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327-28; Lawler, 898 F.2d at 1199. The Court has the “unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Id., 490 U.S. at 327. “A finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). Examples of claims lacking rational facts include a prisoner’s assertion that Robin Hood and his Merry Men deprived prisoners of their access to mail ...