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.

Evans v. Michigan Department of Corrections

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

January 31, 2018

DAVID EVANS, Plaintiff,


          Janet T. Neff United States District Judge

         This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (PLRA), 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 against Defendants Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC), Smith, Scriebner, Jane Doe and Corizon Health Care Services (Corizon). The Court will serve the complaint against Defendants Beechler and Treble.


         I. Factual allegations

         Plaintiff is presently incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) at the Gus Harrison Correctional Facility (ARF) in Adrian, Michigan. The events about which he complains, however, occurred primarily at the Ionia Correctional Facility (ICF) in Ionia, Michigan. Plaintiff sues the MDOC, Corizon, ICF Warden Willie Smith; ICF Deputy Warden Unknown Scriebner; ICF Nurses Unknown Beechler and Unknown Treble; and the unknown health care provider on-call at ICF on the afternoon of June 23, 2017, named as Jane Doe. Defendants Smith, Scriebner, Doe, and Corizon are sued in their official capacity. Defendant Beechler is sued in his or her personal and official capacity. Plaintiff does not identify the capacity in which he is suing Defendant Treble.

         Plaintiff alleges that on June 23, 2017, at 3:00 p.m., he was stabbed by another inmate eleven times: three times to the back of his neck; two times to his chest; one time to his left armpit; one time to the right side of his throat; and the remaining four times to his left arm and back. (Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.3.) Plaintiff states that he was then handcuffed and walked to segregation housing where he was placed in a shower cage for two hours before being seen by Defendant Beechler and Defendant Treble. (Id.) The nurses put bandages on Plaintiff's stab wounds. (Id.) He was then placed back in the shower cage in his bloody clothing. (Id.) He remained standing in the shower cage until 9:00 p.m. when he was taken to Ionia Sparrow Hospital. (Id.)

         Plaintiff alleges that the on-call health care provider delayed obtaining authorization to send Plaintiff to the hospital for so long because the nurses described Plaintiff's wounds as a few minor scratches. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that “[n]o permission was given by Warden Willie Smith or Deputy Warden Scriebner to take me to the hospital for medical attention.” (Id., PageID.3-4.) Plaintiff was also told that the inmate who stabbed him had been taken to the hospital first and that both inmates could not be at the same hospital. (Id., PageID.3.)

         The treating doctor ordered a CAT scan and informed Plaintiff that it was impossible to determine the depth or severity of each stab wound without the scan. (Id., PageID.4.) Plaintiff was stitched up and returned to ICF. (Id.)

         The next day, Plaintiff was told he suffered a punctured lung and severe damage to the back of his neck. (Id.) He contends that Defendants MDOC and Corizon have since refused to provide treatment for his injuries. (Id., PageID.5.)

         Plaintiff claims that Defendants, by leaving him standing, severely wounded, for over six hours in a segregation shower cage, unduly delaying treatment for his wounds, and ultimately refusing to provide necessary follow-up treatment, violated, and continue to violate, his Eighth Amendment right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiff also contends that Defendants violated the Fourteenth and Fourth Amendments, but he does not explain the nature of those claims.

         Plaintiff asks the Court to order the MDOC and Corizon to provide Plaintiff the medical care he needs for his injuries and asks for an award of damages for his pain and suffering.

         II. The MDOC

         Plaintiff may not maintain a § 1983 action against the MDOC. Regardless of the form of relief requested, the states and their departments are immune under the Eleventh Amendment from suit in the federal courts, unless the state has waived immunity or Congress has expressly abrogated Eleventh Amendment immunity by statute. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 98-101 (1984); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978); O'Hara v. Wigginton, 24 F.3d 823, 826 (6th Cir. 1993). Congress has not expressly abrogated Eleventh Amendment immunity by statute, Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 341 (1979), and the State of Michigan has not consented to civil rights suits in federal court. Abick v. Michigan, 803 F.2d 874, 877 (6th Cir. 1986). In numerous unpublished opinions, the Sixth Circuit has specifically held that the MDOC is absolutely immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. See, e.g., McCoy v. Michigan, 369 F. App'x 646, 653-54 (6th Cir. 2010); Turnboe v. Stegall, No. 00-1182, 2000 WL1679478, at *2 (6th Cir. Nov. 1, 2000). In addition, the State of Michigan (acting through the Michigan Department of Corrections) is not a “person” who may be sued under § 1983 for money damages. See Lapides v. Bd. of Regents, 535 U.S. 613 (2002) (citing Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989)). Therefore, the MDOC is properly dismissed under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

         III. Official and ...

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.