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.

Hardy v. Ingham County Jail

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

January 31, 2017

INGHAM COUNTY JAIL et al., Defendants.


          Paul L. Maloney, 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). 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 determines that Defendants Ionia County Jail, WLNS Crime Stoppers, Jerold McGlothlin, Myrle Carner, Jane Doe (Unknown Party #2), and Unknown Jungel will be dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court will serve the complaint against Defendant Moore.


         I. Factual allegations

         Plaintiff Gregory Hardy is a former inmate of the Ingham County Jail (ICJ). He sues the ICJ, and the following ICJ employees: Nurse Christina Moore; Lieutenant (unknown) Jungel, and two unknown deputies named as John Doe (Unknown Party #1) and Jane Doe (Unknown Party #2). He also sues WLNS Crime Stoppers and apparent Crime-Stoppers employees Jerold McGlothlin and Myrle Carner.

         Plaintiff alleges that, on July 5, 2016, he entered the ICJ as an inmate. The unknown deputy who processed him into the jail, John Doe or Unknown Party #1, told Plaintiff that he was required to provide his social security number and prison number. On July 12, 2016, Defendant Jungel advised Plaintiff that Defendant Moore had told him that Plaintiff had called Moore a “Bitch.” (Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.6.) Defendant Jungel “sadistic[ally]” advised Plaintiff that the next time he saw Plaintiff he would place him in isolation. (Id.) However, Plaintiff was discharged on July 13, 2016. Plaintiff alleges that he explained to Jungel that he had previously sued Moore, in a case that was settled after three years of litigation. See Hardy v. Montimayor et al., No 1:13-cv-1133 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 3, 2016). According to Plaintiff, Moore was “playing him” with an intent to retaliate. (Compl., ECF No. 1, PagID.6.)

         Plaintiff returned to ICJ on September 9, 2016. He was again processed by Defendant John Doe. Defendant John Doe conducted himself in a joking manner, as if he knew Plaintiff. Defendant John Doe escorted Plaintiff to the mugshot area and told Plaintiff that mugshots were required each time a person entered ICJ. John Doe told Plaintiff that he had “used information in the past regarding plaintiff to WLNS “Crime Stoppers, ” but then indicated that he was joking. (Id., PageID.7.) Plaintiff contends, however, that Defendant John Doe was not joking, because information about Plaintiff was aired on WLNS Crime Stoppers, describing Plaintiff as a sexual predator and relating the address where Plaintiff lived. In addition, Plaintiff alleges that he observed Defendant John Doe write Plaintiff's address on a piece of paper during processing and later pass the paper to Defendant Moore. Plaintiff complains that Defendants John Doe, Moore and WLNS Crime Stoppers should have known that their actions in publicizing such defamatory information were unconstitutional.

         After Plaintiff was processed, he encountered Defendant Classification Deputy Jane Doe, who became argumentative with Plaintiff before calling Defendant Lieutenant Jungel. Jungel placed Plaintiff in isolation, “just as he had ‘promised' on July 12, 2016 for 48 hours.” (Id., PageID.9.) Plaintiff complains that he did not receive due process. He also complains that the cell was extremely cold, but he was not given a blanket. He also complains that he was only given cold, leftover finger sandwiches while other inmates received hot food trays. Plaintiff was released from isolation on September 11, 2016, two days later.

         After release from isolation, Plaintiff was placed in unit 4-C, in a disciplinary cell. He claims that he was denied restroom privileges and forced to urinate in the cell garbage can for an unspecified period of time. He also allegedly was denied out-of -cell exercise.

         Finally, Plaintiff makes confusing allegations about his attempts to locate Defendants Jerold McGlothin and Myrle Carner of WLNS Crime Stoppers.

         Plaintiff asserts that Defendants retaliated against him for his prior federal lawsuit, defamed his character, subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment, fabricated an improper security classification level, and deprived him of due process. For relief, he seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

         II. Failure to state a claim

         A complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it fails “‘to give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). While a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's allegations must include more than labels and conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”). The court must determine whether the complaint contains “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Although the plausibility standard is not equivalent to a “‘probability requirement, ' . . . it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged - but it has not ‘show[n]' - that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)); see also Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010) (holding that the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard applies to dismissals of prisoner cases on initial review under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)).

         A. ...

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.