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.

Barner v. Mackie

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

April 28, 2017

THOMAS MACKIE 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), 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, Plaintiff's action will be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

         Factual Allegations

         Plaintiff Michael A. Barner presently is incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) at the Oaks Correctional Facility (ECF). He sues the following officials: ECF Warden Thomas Mackie; ECF Nurse Lori Dumas; the unknown ECF health care administrator (Unknown Party #1); an unknown ECF health care employee (Unknown Party #2); and the unknown private corporation providing health care at ECF (Unknown Party #3).

         Plaintiff alleges that, for some time, he has been taking two medications, Norvasc and Lisinopril, to treat his hypertension. Plaintiff was transferred from the Kinross Correctional Facility to ECF, by way of the Chippewa Correctional Facility and the Charles Egeler Reception and Guidance Center (RGC). He arrived at ECF on October 6, 2016, and was placed in the administrative-segregation unit. On September 14, 2016, while he was at RGC, Plaintiff requested that both medications be refilled. A one-week supply was issued to Plaintiff on September 14, 2016. After Plaintiff's property arrived at ECF, he also received the remainder of the medication he had brought with him. Plaintiff complains that he did not receive a medical examination when he arrived, as policy required.

         On October 18, 2016, Plaintiff submitted a medical kite, seeking refills of his blood pressure medications. In the kite, Plaintiff notified Defendant Dumas that he had exhausted his medication and that he was experiencing headaches. Although Dumas ordered the medications immediately, and although they were received the next day, for an unknown reason, the medications did not get immediately issued to Plaintiff. On October 25, 2016, as a result of not receiving his medications, Plaintiff suffered severe headaches, shortness of breath, dizziness and a light head, which led him to briefly pass out in his cell. Plaintiff was promptly evaluated by a physician, and he reported to the physician that he had not had his medications since October 11, 2016, and he suspected the lack of medicine caused his symptoms. Health care promptly issued the medications to Plaintiff.

         Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Dumas was responsible for reviewing medical kites and ensuring that all services were properly provided. He alleges that Defendant Mackie was responsible for ensuring that Plaintiff received appropriate care and services. According to Plaintiff, Unknown Party #1, as the health care administrator, was responsible for ensuring the provision of medical care to prisoners. In addition, he alleges that Unknown Party #2 was responsible for administering medications to prisoners in segregation. Finally, he contends that the private health care corporation was responsible for having policies that addressed prisoner health care needs.

         For relief, Plaintiff seeks substantial compensatory and punitive damages.


         I. 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)).

         To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the federal Constitution or laws and must show that the deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Dominguez v. Corr. Med. Servs., 555 F.3d 543, 549 (6th Cir. 2009). Because § 1983 is a method for vindicating federal rights, not a source of substantive rights itself, the first step in an action under § 1983 is to identify the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994).

         To the extent that Petitioner argues that one or more Defendants violated prison policy by not giving him a physical examination upon arrival at ECF, he fails to state a constitutional claim. Defendant's alleged failure to comply with an administrative rule or policy does not itself rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Laney v. Farley, 501 F.3d 577, 581 n.2 (6th Cir. 2007); Brody v. City of Mason, 250 F.3d 432, 437 (6th Cir. 2001); Smith v. Freland, 954 F.2d 343, 347-48 (6th Cir. 1992); Barber v. City of Salem, 953 F.2d 232, 240 (6th Cir. 1992); McVeigh v. Bartlett, No. 94-23347, 1995 WL 236687, at *1 (6th Cir. Apr. 21, 1995) (failure to follow policy directive does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation because policy directive does not create a protectible liberty interest). Section 1983 is addressed to remedying violations of federal law, not state law. Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 924 (1982); Laney, 501 F.3d at 580-81.

         To the extent that Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Eighth Amendment, he also fails to state a claim. The Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment against those convicted of crimes. U.S. Const. amend. VIII. The Eighth Amendment obligates prison authorities to provide medical care to incarcerated individuals, as a failure to provide such care would be inconsistent with contemporary standards of decency. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 102, 103-04 (1976). The Eighth Amendment is violated when a prison ...

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.