Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Alexander v. Haas

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

August 11, 2016

MYLES ALEXANDER #862651,
v.
RANDALL HAAS, ET AL., Defendants.

          Myles Danard Alexander, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

          Randall Haas, Defendant, represented by Allan J. Soros, Michigan Department of Attorney General.

          Michael J. Marutiak, Defendant, represented by Allan J. Soros, Michigan Department of Attorney General.

          Cascelia Brown-Brandon, Defendant, represented by Allan J. Soros, Michigan Department of Attorney General.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          R. STEVEN WHALEN, Magistrate Judge.

         On December 8, 2014, Plaintiff Myles Alexander, a prison inmate in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections ("MDOC"), filed a pro se civil complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court are two motions to dismiss, or in the alternative for summary judgment, filed by Defendants Cascelia Brown-Brandon ("Brandon") and Michael J. Marutiak ("Marutiak")[Doc. #35], and Randall Haas ("Haas")[Doc. #38], respectively. The two motions have been referred for a Report and Recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). I recommend that both motions be GRANTED, and that the complaint be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to these Defendants.

         I. FACTS

         At the time of the events giving rise to Plaintiff's claims, he was incarcerated at the G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility in Jackson, Michigan. Defendant Haas was the Warden of the Cotton Facility, Defendant Marutiak was an Administrative Hearings Officer, and Defendant Brown-Brandon was a Deputy Warden. Plaintiff alleges that Haas and Brandon were members of the prison's Security Classification Committee.

         In his complaint, Mr. Alexander raises three causes of action, which he labels as fraud (Count I), negligent misrepresentation (Count II), and breach of fiduciary duty (Count III). His claims are based an allegation that Defendants Roth and Howard lied on a misconduct report, resulting in his placement in administrative segregation. The charge arose from an incident in which a female located outside the prison threw a football over a fence and into the prison yard. This was no ordinary football: it contained three cell phones, tobacco, marijuana, and a white substance believed to be heroin. The misconduct report states that Mr. Alexander admitted that he arranged to have contraband smuggled into the prison. Mr. Alexander now claims that Defendants Howard and Roth lied, and that he had nothing to do with the football or the contraband.

         Plaintiff alleges that Howard and Roth lied about Plaintiff's involvement in the football incident with the intent to induce Haas, Brandon, and Martuiak to pursue disciplinary action against him. Complaint [Doc. #1], ¶ 14. He states that at the time Howard and Roth made their false representations, Haas, Brandon, and Martuiak "believed them to be true and had no reasons to believe that said representations were untrue." Id. ¶ 15. He states that "[h]ad they known the true facts they would not have taken such action" (i.e., placing him in administrative segregation). Id.

         In Count II of his complaint (negligent misrepresentation), Plaintiff alleges that Howard and Roth did not have sufficient information to make their allegations of misconduct, and that they "concealed from the remaining defendants their lack of information and data that prevented them from making a true evaluation of the facts." Id. ¶ 17. Plaintiff states that Defendants Haas, Brandon, and Martuiak "justifiably relied on said representations." Id. ¶ 18. He reiterates that Haas, Brandon, and Martuiak believed Howard's and Roth's misrepresentations to be true, and had no reason to believe otherwise. He states that Haas, Brandon, and Martuiak relied on these false representations in placing him in administrative segregation, and that they would not have taken that action had they known the true facts. Id. ¶ 19.

         The present Defendants move for dismissal based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies, failure to state a constitutional claim, and qualified immunity.

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         A. Rule ...


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.