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.

Draughn v. Bouchard

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

March 30, 2017

Ronald Draughn, Plaintiff,
v.
Michael Bouchard, et al., Defendants.

          Stephanie Dawkins Davis, United States Magistrate Judge

         OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [71], OVERRULING IN PART AND SUSTAINING IN PART DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [66, 67], ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAWKINS DAVIS'S RECOMMENDATION [65], GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO RULE 12(B)(6) [28], GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL [32], AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 41(B) [35] AS MOOT

          Hon. Gershwin A. Drain United States District Court Judge

         I. Introduction

         This matter is before the court on Defendant Michael Bouchard's Motions to Dismiss [28, 35] and Motion to Compel [32]. Defendant Bouchard moves to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 41(b), as well as to compel Plaintiff Ronald Mark Draughn to provide discovery. See Dkt. Nos. 28, 32, 35.

         Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis issued a Report and Recommendation that Defendant Bouchard's Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) be granted in part and denied in part, that his Motion to Dismiss under Rule 41(b) be denied as moot, and that his Motion to Compel be granted. Dkt. No. 65. Both Defendant Bouchard and Plaintiff objected to Magistrate Dawkins Davis's recommendation. See Dkt. Nos. 66-67, 71.

         After reviewing the record, and the arguments put forth by the parties, the Court will overrule the parties objections and ACCEPT Magistrate Judge Dawkins Davis's Recommendation [65], GRANT in part and DENY in part Defendant Bouchard's Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) [28], GRANT Defendant Bouchard's Motion to Compel [32], and DENY as moot Defendant Bouchard's Motion to Dismiss under Rule 41(b) [35].

         II. Background

         On November 8th, 2015, the Oak Park police arrested Plaintiff. Dkt. No. 1, p. 3 (Pg. ID 3). Plaintiff alleges that at the time of his arrest, he was suffering from several prior injuries for which he was undergoing active treatment. Id. He claims that he informed booking staff at the Oak Park police station that he suffered from two herniated discs, severe osteoarthritis, and degenerative bone disease in his knees, feet, spine, and other parts of his body. Id. at 3-4. He alleges that he also suffers from hypertension and other illnesses. Id. at 4.

         Plaintiff states that he informed the booking officer that he was on medication for his illnesses and would suffer pain, a worsening of his condition, and possibly death if he did not receive his prescribed medications. Id. He alleges that the booking officer stated that Plaintiff would need to wait three days, until his arraignment and transportation to Oakland County Jail to receive medical treatment and medication. Id. At the Oak Park facility, Plaintiff claims he was forced to sleep on the concrete floor for three days. Id.

         On November 11, 2015, Plaintiff was transferred to the Oakland County Jail, where he again had to sleep on the concrete floor for two or three additional days in a “holding cell/bullpen.” Id. Plaintiff alleges that he informed several deputies at the Oakland County Jail that he was ill and had not taken his prescribed medications in three days. Id. at 4-5. He states that he was told he could submit a written “kite” to medical staff once he was moved from the holding cell to an upstairs cell in approximately three to seven days. Id. at 5.

         Plaintiff states that cockroaches and mice crawled on him while he was sleeping on the concrete floor of the holding cell for the following three days. Id. When he complained, Plaintiff alleges he was told that he would be moved upstairs in a few days. Id.

         On November 14, 2015, Plaintiff was moved from the holding cell to a ten-man cell upstairs. Id. He claims that he was told he had to sleep on the floor on a thin mattress. Id. Plaintiff alleges he informed the deputies that he was in pain and had not received his medication in nearly a week. Id.

         On November 15, 2015, Plaintiff was called to the jail healthcare station where he was allegedly told by a nurse that he could not be given his pain medications because the jail had a policy banning those specific medications. Id. at 5-6. On Friday, December 11, 2015, Plaintiff was again called out to the jail healthcare station, where a physician allegedly told him the medical services contractor had a policy of forbidding any of the medications prescribed by his physician. Id. at 6.

         On July 14, 2016, an Oakland County jury found Plaintiff guilty of felonious assault and four weapons charges from an offense that took place on November 8, 2015. People v. Draughn, No. 2015-256768 (Oakland Cnty. Cir. Ct. July 14, 2016) (unpublished). Plaintiff was sentenced on September 1, 2016 and is currently incarcerated at Lakeland Correctional Facility. See Offender Tracking Information System (OTIS) at http://mdocweb.state.mi.us/OTIS2/otis2.html.[1]

         Plaintiff claims he filed numerous grievances while in jail, which have either been destroyed by jail staff or gone unanswered. Dkt. No. 1, p. 6 (Pg. Id. 6). Plaintiff argues that defendants have shown deliberate indifference to his medical needs, have permitted a vermin infestation in his cell, and denied him hygiene products and changes of clothing. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Bouchard is the “supervising sheriff” of the facility where he was housed and the deputies and medical staff are following his express directives, policies, and orders, which have deprived plaintiff of his constitutional rights. Id. at 7.

         III. ...


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.