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.

Giles v. Bouchard

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

March 28, 2018

Kevin Giles, Plaintiff,
v.
Michael J. Bouchard et al., Defendants.

          ANTHONY P. PATTI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

          OPINION AND SUSTAINING DEFENDANTS' OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [30], AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT [23]

          GERSHWIN A. DRAIN United States District Judge.

         I. Introduction

         Kevin Giles initiated this action on January 17, 2017. Dkt. No. 1. On July 5, 2017, he filed an Amended Complaint asserting claims against the following Defendants: Aramark Correctional Services Inc.; Michael J. Bouchard, an Oakland County Sheriff; Curtis Childs, an Oakland County Sheriff; Anna Dolinski, an Aramark employee; John Doe No. 1, an employee at the Oakland County Jail; John Doe No. 2, an employee at the Oakland County Jail.[1] See Dkt. No. 22, pp. 2-3 (Pg. ID 80-81). He raises nine 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims, all under the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment. See id.

         On July 19, 2017, Bouchard, Childs, and the John Doe Defendants (collectively, “Oakland County Defendants”) filed a Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. No. 23. Giles has not responded to the motion.

         As the Court referred all pretrial matters in this case to Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti, Magistrate Judge Patti issued a Report and Recommendation on the Motion to Dismiss. See Dkt. Nos. 7, 28. In his December 18, 2017 Report and Recommendation, he recommended that the Court dismiss all of Plaintiff's claims, except for Plaintiff's retaliatory prosecution claim. Dkt. No. 28, pp. 15-17 (Pg. ID 149-51). He urged the Court to permit the retaliatory prosecution claim to proceed in this action. See id.

         On January 2, 2018, the Oakland County Defendants timely objected to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation on the retaliatory prosecution claim. Dkt. No. 30. There were no other objections to the Report and Recommendation.

         Presently before the Court is the Oakland County Defendants' Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation regarding Plaintiff's retaliatory prosecution claim [30]. The Court will find that Giles has not adequately alleged a retaliatory prosecution claim. Accordingly, the Court will SUSTAIN the Oakland County Defendants' Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Dkt. No. 30. As the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Patti regarding dismissal of Plaintiff's other counts, dismissal of the retaliatory prosecution claim means that the Oakland County Defendants will prevail on their Motion to Dismiss.

         II. Background

         This matter relates to Giles's detainment at the Oakland County Jail in Pontiac, Michigan. Dkt. No. 22, pp. 1-2 (Pg. ID 79-80). Giles's issues with this confinement include lack of exercise opportunities, inadequate access to the law library, quality (or rather, lack thereof) of meals served, absence of beds thereby forcing him to sleep on the floor, and assignment to “intake tanks.” Id. at p. 4 (Pg. ID 82). Plaintiff, in particular, protests assignment to the intake tanks. Id. He asserts they were unsanitary, overcrowded, and allowed for minimal opportunity to leave the area. Id. at pp. 5-6 (Pg. ID 83-84). According to Giles, detainees could only leave the tanks once each day; and even then, it was only for five minutes to take a shower. Id. at p. 6 (Pg. ID 84).

         While at the Oakland County Jail, Giles submitted to deputy sheriffs numerous grievances regarding the conditions of his confinement. Id. at pp. 3-4 (Pg. ID 81-82). He claims the grievance procedure involved him handing a form to the deputy sheriff assigned to his section of the jail. Id. at p. 3 (Pg. ID 81). In addition to these written complaints, he also verbally expressed his discontent to deputy sheriffs. Id.

         Giles contends deputy sheriffs retaliated against him because of his protests, and in doing so, assigned him to the intake tanks. Id. at 5 (Pg. ID 83). He also maintains that on his grievance forms, he always requested an appeal, which meant review by a captain. Id. at 4 (Pg. ID 82). The deputy sheriffs, however, rarely marked his grievance form accordingly, so few appeals of his complaints were heard. Id.

         III. Legal Standard

         First, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows a court to assess whether a plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, ' in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.' ” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). “[E]ven though the complaint need not contain ‘detailed' factual allegations, its ‘factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the ...


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.