United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Northern Division
J. QUIST 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 Strait, Wilk,
Ahlborn, Spencer, and Correct Care Solutions . The Court will
serve the complaint against Defendant Aldridge.
David Wayne Hiser, filed this civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 while he was confined at the Mackinac
County Jail. Plaintiff sues Defendants Mackinac County
Sheriff Scott Strait, Under Sheriff Ed Wilk, Jail
Administrator Tim Ahlborn, Prosecutor J. Stewart Spencer,
County Jail Doctor Scott Aldridge, and Correct Care
Solutions. Plaintiff alleges that he was denied adequate
medical treatment during his time at the Jail in violation of
his Eighth Amendment rights.
alleges that he had a tree fall on him in October of 1992,
which broke Plaintiff's back. Plaintiff eventually
recovered enough to return to work. However, in the year
2000, Plaintiff began to experience daily back pain.
Plaintiff was treated with pain medication until 2008, when
he began to receive epidural injections.
arrived at the Mackinac County Jail on August 23, 2016, and
told jail personnel that he was legally disabled and would
need to see a doctor. At the time that Plaintiff came into
the jail, he could walk approximately 9 miles, but required
continuing treatment to maintain his health. After three to
four weeks, a nurse told Plaintiff to file some grievances
and that if the doctor didn't see them, someone in the
front office would see them and something would be done for
Plaintiff. After 56 days, Plaintiff was finally seen by the
jail doctor, Defendant Scott Aldridge. At this time,
Plaintiff explained his disability and asked for medical
help. Plaintiff told Defendant Aldridge that he had 24 years
worth of medical records that he could get within 20 minutes.
Defendant Aldridge stated that he would get Plaintiff's
records from the Veteran's Administration.
64 days elapsed, at which point Plaintiff wrote 2 more
grievances. Upon seeing Plaintiff, Defendant Aldridge asked
why he had filed “all the grievances.” Plaintiff
stated that something needed to be done and asked Defendant
Aldridge to read his records. Plaintiff was given nothing but
6 Tylenol per week for pain. Plaintiff complains that he lost
a tooth and that two more teeth are loose because the pain
caused him to grind his teeth so much. Plaintiff's
ex-wife and friends called state and county officials, and
one of the county commissioners investigated. Plaintiff
states that Defendant Strait spoke to the commissioner and
told him that Plaintiff was angry and was merely seeking
narcotics. Plaintiff denies ever asking for narcotics.
states that he did not receive any treatment for his back
problems for approximately 5 months. In addition, Plaintiff
was forced to sleep on a steel bunk with a single mattress,
despite his request for a second mattress. At the end of the
5 month period, Plaintiff could not walk a quarter of a mile.
Plaintiff claims that his back pain has never felt as severe
as it is now, and he is not sure if he will ever recover from
the extended period of medical neglect. Plaintiff states that
he could not eat at the table until the nurse provided him
with a wheelchair on December 18, 2016. During the time that
Plaintiff was without a wheelchair, there were times that he
was in too much pain to make it to the toilet, so he urinated
and defecated in his bunk. On at least one occasion,
Plaintiff was placed in “the hole” for his
January 29, 2107, Plaintiff asked officers for paperwork to
file a lawsuit in the federal court. On January 30, 2017,
Plaintiff was taken to the emergency room in St. Ignace and
received injections for pain. On January 31, 2017, a doctor
read Plaintiff's medical records, did an examination, and
said that Plaintiff had back and nerve issues. The doctor
also said that if nothing was done, Plaintiff would be in bed
for good. On February 1, 2017, Plaintiff received an extra
mattress and was started on 650 mg of Tylenol twice a day. On
February 3, 2017, Plaintiff had additional blood work.
Plaintiff was released on probation on March 23, 2017.
claims that Defendants violated his rights under the Eighth
Amendment by neglecting his medical needs for five and a half
months, by confining him in a jail which was not handicapped
accessible, and by not providing him with a wheelchair when
he initially began his period of confinement. Plaintiff seeks
damages in the amount of $4, 000, 000.00.
Failure to state a claim
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)).
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); Street
v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 102 F.3d 810, 814 (6th Cir.
1996). Because § 1983 is a method for vindicating
federal rights, not a source of substantive rights itself,
the first step in an action ...