United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Stephanie Dawkins Davis United States Magistrate Judge.
ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL, DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE
THE COURT WITH THE INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION NEEDED
TO EFFECTUATE SERVICE UPON THE REMAINING
DEFENDANTS, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR
CORRESPONDENCE TO BE SENT BY CERTIFIED MAIL
Gershwin A. Drain United States District Court Judge.
2016, Plaintiff William Staples filed a pro se civil
rights complaint. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff is a federal prisoner
currently confined at the United States Prison-Hazelton,
located in Bruceton Mills, West Virginia. Plaintiff filed a
lawsuit against seven defendants. The Court reviewed
plaintiff's complaint, dismissed one claim, and ordered
Plaintiff to provide copies and documentation needed to
effectuate service in July 2016. Dkt. No. 5.
Plaintiff failed to comply with the July order, the Court
ordered Plaintiff to show cause why his case should not be
dismissed on December 13, 2016. Dkt. No. 6. Plaintiff
submitted a response to the order to show cause, improperly
labeled as a motion, on December 28, 2016. Dkt. No. 7. In his
response, Plaintiff claims that the July 2016 order
“was never delivered to [him].” Id. at 3
(Pg. ID No. 35). He also requests that the Court send
correspondence related to this case by certified mail to him.
Id. at 1 (Pg. ID No. 33).
Court will reiterate its findings from the July 2016 order
within this order. For the reasons stated below, the Court
denies Plaintiff's request to have the Court send all his
correspondence by certified mail and dismisses part
Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim and
misjoinder. The Court will further order plaintiff to provide
three (3) additional copies of the complaint to the Court and
to specifically identify the remaining “John Doe”
defendant within sixty (60) days of this order, so that the
Court can properly effectuate service upon the remaining
Standard Of Review
plaintiff may file suit in federal court for damages arising
from a violation of plaintiff's constitutional rights by
persons acting under the color of federal law. See Bivens
v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 395 (1971). Because plaintiff
is alleging that his constitutional rights were violated by
persons acting under color of federal law, plaintiff's
complaint is properly construed as a Bivens action.
See, e.g., Shehee v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295, 298
(6th Cir. 1999).
the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), district
courts are required to screen all civil cases brought by
prisoners. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d
601, 608 (6th Cir. 1997). If a complaint fails to pass muster
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) or § 1915A, the
“district court should sua sponte dismiss the
complaint.” Id. at 612. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915(e)(2)(A), a district
court must sua sponte dismiss an in forma
pauperis complaint before service on the defendant if
satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious, that it
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
that it seeks monetary relief from a defendant or defendants
who are immune from such relief. McLittle v.
O'Brien, 974 F.Supp. 635, 636 (E.D. Mich. 1997). The
screening provisions of the PLRA are applicable to
Bivens actions brought by federal inmates. See,
e.g., Diaz v. Van Norman, 351 F.Supp.2d 679, 680-81
(E.D. Mich. 2005).
alleges that he was previously incarcerated at the Federal
Correctional Institution at Milan, Michigan
(“FCI-Milan”). Plaintiff claims he was being
treated for several chronic medical conditions. Plaintiff
claims that each time he received treatment for these
illnesses, he was charged a co-pay of $2.00. In total,
plaintiff was required to pay $12.00 in co-payments.
Plaintiff appealed these co-payments to defendant Dr. Charles
Samuel, Jr., the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons,
and Defendant Harrella Watts, the Administrator of National
Inmate Appeals, but his appeals were denied.
Plaintiff claims that Defendant Stone, the Unit Manager at
FCI-Milan, failed to provide postage to plaintiff to enable
him to mail out various administrative appeals. Plaintiff
alleges that Stone's failure to provide him postage
caused one of his civil cases to be dismissed for failure to
comply with a court date.
claims that Defendants Murphy, Bowman, and “John
Doe” forced him to work in the prison kitchen, even
though plaintiff's medical conditions prevented him from
being able to work. Plaintiff claims that the defendants
threatened to place him in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) if
he did not work. Plaintiff claims that he suffered a heart
attack as a result of being forced to work and was rushed to
seeks monetary and injunctive relief.