United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Northern Division
WILLIE J. HARRIS, Plaintiff,
J. LeCLAIRE, et al., Defendants.
L. Maloney United States District Judge
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, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's complaint
for failure to state a claim against Defendants Jondreau,
Collins, Place, Minton, Oh, and Unknown Parties. The Court
will serve the complaint against Defendant LeClaire.
Willie J. Harris, a state prisoner currently confined at the
Baraga Maximum Correctional Facility (AMF), filed this
pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 against Defendants Prison Counselor J. LeClaire,
Resident Unit Manager W. Jondreau, Pharmacy Assistant
Jennifer L. Collins, Warden S. Place, Account Tech T. Minton,
Doctor Chung Oh, and Unknown Parties Mail Room Staff.
Plaintiff states that Defendants LeClaire, Minton, and
Unknown Parties destroyed outgoing mail that had sent to his
sister Odella on May 7, 2016, and June 13, 2016. Plaintiff
discovered this on June 28, 2016, when he spoke to his sister
on the phone. Plaintiff claims that Defendants LeClaire,
Minton, and Unknown Parties falsified documentation and
improperly charged Plaintiff's prison account for postage
in order to make it look as if they had sent out
claims that on June 9, 2016, Defendant LeClaire refused to
process legal mail addressed to MDOC Director Heidi E.
Washington because it did “not meet the criteria of
legal mail.” However, Defendant LeClaire refused to
return the mail to Plaintiff. In addition, Plaintiff states
that Defendant LeClaire repeatedly forced Plaintiff to
forfeit his yard and declined to call Plaintiff out to
process his legal mail except during yard time, despite the
fact that Plaintiff sent kites requesting to be called out
before yard at 9:00 a.m. Instead, Defendant LeClaire
continued to make legal mail rounds after Plaintiff's
regular yard schedule. Plaintiff states that this forced him
to forego yard in order to get his legal mail processed.
Plaintiff confronted Defendant LeClaire about this issue and
was told, “You filed a grievance on me about the issue
good luck with that.”
alleges that on July 18, 2016, Defendant LeClaire called
Plaintiff to his office to process his legal mail, which was
addressed to the 63rd District Court. Plaintiff suspected
that Defendant LeClaire did not send his mail out because he
knew it was a lawsuit, so he called his sister and had her
check to see if his complaint had been received by the 63rd
District Court. His sister discovered that Plaintiff's
filing had not been received by the court.
confronted Defendant LeClaire about his outgoing mail and
Defendant LeClaire stated, “So what? I don't care,
sue me. Just make sure you spell my name correct.”
Later that day, Defendant Place told Plaintiff to go ahead
and sue because “we always win.” Plaintiff filed
a grievance regarding the missing mail. Defendant Jondreau
discussed the grievance with Plaintiff, stating that
Plaintiff could not prove that prison officials interfered
with his mail as long as they possessed documentation showing
that it had been sent out. However, Defendant Jondreau did
not show Plaintiff any such documentation.
alleges that Defendants Collins and Oh have refused to give
him his prescribed medical treatment for his skin condition.
Plaintiff claims that he is to receive coal tar ointment, but
that medical staff claimed that his order had expired.
Plaintiff claims that he was denied treatment from March 28,
2016, until May 6, 2016, which resulted in unnecessary
suffering for Plaintiff. On June 9, 2016, Plaintiff submitted
a request for a refill of the coal tar ointment, to no avail.
When Plaintiff showed Defendant Collins his painful sores,
rash, and hives, she told him that it was not an emergency
and that Defendant Oh was aware of Plaintiff's request
and was going to prescribe a replacement treatment for
Plaintiff because they did not have coal tar ointment in
28, 2016, Plaintiff had to be called out as a medical
emergency patient. Defendant Oh noted Plaintiff's
symptoms and ordered a steroid / Benadryl injection.
Plaintiff asked Defendant Oh why he had not ordered a
replacement treatment. Plaintiff discovered that Defendant
Collins had never informed Defendant Oh that a replacement
treatment was needed. In addressing Plaintiff's grievance
regarding this issue, the step II respondent, Patricia Lamb,
RN, BSN, stated:
Grievant claims that he has been denied timely provision of
coal tar ointment.
Review of the electronic medical record reveals that grievant
arrived at AMF on 3/28/16 with a nearly expired order for
coal tar. (It expired on 3/31/16). The matter was referred to
the medical provider who addressed the issue on 4/8/16. Per
documentation of that visit, coal tar was not ordered in
favor of a different topical treatment. After grievant
continued to request coal tar and reported that the new
treatment plan was ineffective, the coal tar was re-ordered
on 5/5/16 and issued to grievant on 5/6/16. Grievant
requested a refill of this product on 6/10/16. However, it
was on back order from the off-site pharmacy and could not be
immediately filled. It was eventually received from the
pharmacy and issed to the grievant on 6/29/16.
It is acknowledged that there was a delay in provision of the
requested coal tar refill in June. However, the back order
and subsequent delay in shipment from the off-site pharmacy
was not within the control of AMF Health Care. In the event a
similar situation occurs in future, ...