Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hodge v. Myers

United States District Court, Western District of Michigan, Northern Division

May 21, 2015

WOODROW MYERS, JR., et al., Defendants.



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 Broderick Hodge, a state prisoner currently confined at the Kinross Correctional Facility (KCF), filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Chairman of Corizon Corporation Woodrow Myers, Jr., Director of Prison Health Service Dr. Sylvia McQueen, MDOC Director Daniel H. Heyns, Dr. Unknown Stevie, Physician Assistant Unknown Buskirk, Physician Unknown Canles, Nurse Practitioner Susan H. Wilson, and Officer C. Molina.

In Plaintiff’s complaint, he alleges that on February 16, 2010, while he was confined at the St. Louis Correctional Facility, he received an accommodation for prescription oxford and tennis shoes. However, Plaintiff did not immediately receive his shoes and eventually purchased his own tennis shoes. On May 18, 2010, Defendant Buskirk cancelled the accommodation, stating that Plaintiff had already purchased the needed shoes. Defendant Stevie was Defendant Buskirk’s supervisor and failed to take corrective action. Plaintiff states that he was not aware of the cancellation of the accommodation until 2014.

Plaintiff states that 4 years and 3 months later, officials at KCF “discovered” that Plaintiff’s medical condition was permanent, although Plaintiff does not explain what he means by this statement. On May 18, 2014, Plaintiff received a misconduct ticket for possession of forged documents and disobeying a direct order from Defendant Molina. According to the misconduct report, Plaintiff came to the control center without state shoes on for his visit. When asked if he had a detail to be without state issue shoes, Plaintiff stated that he did not. However, Plaintiff then produced a medical detail for regular tennis shoes, so Plaintiff was allowed into the visitor room. Defendant Molina then called health care to verify the detail and discovered that Plaintiff did not have a detail allowing him to be on a visit without state issue shoes. Defendant Molina ordered Plaintiff to return to his housing unit and get state issue shoes, at which point he could return to the visitor room. Plaintiff came to the control center again with another pair of black tennis shoes, which did not contain an inmate number. In addition, the signature on the detail had been forged. See docket #1-1, p. 13 of 28. Plaintiff received a hearing on May 21, 2014. In the hearing report, Hearing Officer Malette found Plaintiff not guilty:

[Hearing Officer] finds that the prisoner reported to Control Center for a visit. Staff told him that he is supposed to wear state shoes. He told them that he has a Special Accommodation for medical shoes and does not own a pair of state shoes. The officer called Health Services and was informed that the prisoner does not have a current detail to be on a visit without state shoes. [Hearing Officer] has reviewed documents presented and there is a document presented by the prisoner in his defense. It states, “Approval to wear medical shoes on visit. J. Woods dated 9-9-13.”
Both charges are not upheld as the evidence presented by the prisoner does give him permission to wear medical shoes instead of state shoes on a visit.
Health Service staff was contacted today and they state that the prisoner does not have a current Special Accommodation Notice for medical or prescription shoes. [Hearing Officer] informed the prisoner that effective IMMEDIATELY he does not have a Special Accommodation Notice for medical or prescription shoes and is required to send a kite to Health Services for evaluation. The prior authorization from Warden Woods at URF is cancelled.

See docket #1-1, p. 14 of 28.

On August 11, 2014, Plaintiff demanded to know why his shoe detail had been cancelled. Nurse Bethany A. Julian, R.N., responded by stating:

In review of your record, your prescription shoe accommodation was cancelled on 5/18/2010 by PA Buskirk after the original order was cancelled in February, as you bought your own tennis shoes. It states in his note that, at that time (5/18/2010) there was “no indication for medical provided tennis shoes.” Therefore, your accommodation has been invalid since 5/18/2010. At this point, you may rekite for a nursing evaluation if you wish, and to be referred to the medical service provider for a shoe accommodation.

See docket #1-1, p. 10 of 28.

Plaintiff asserts that the cancellation of his medical detail was undertaken without a doctor’s approval and without re-examining Plaintiff’s medical condition. Plaintiff asserts that between the cancellation of his detail in 2010 and August 22, 2014, Plaintiff struggled with chronic pain and suffered damage to his foot, all because Plaintiff purchased his own tennis shoes and Defendants decided that his medical condition had been ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.