United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Northern Division
J. JONKER CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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 for failure to state a claim
against Defendants Corizon and Michigan Department of
Corrections Bureau of Health Care. The Court will serve the
complaint against Defendants Buchanan and Headley.
is presently incarcerated with the Michigan Department of
Corrections (MDOC) at the G. Robert Cotton Correctional
Facility (JCF) in Jackson, Michigan. The events about which
he complains, however, occurred at the Chippewa Correctional
Facility (URF) in Kincheloe, Chippewa County, Michigan.
Plaintiff sues Corizon, Michigan Department of Corrections
Bureau of Health Care (MDOC-BHCS), Nurse Practitioner Brenda
Buchanan, and Nurse Unknown Headley.
alleges that on September 22, 2016, he fell while in
quarantine, but was not taken to the hospital. Plaintiff was
already considered disabled and required a cane. Plaintiff
was issued a medical detail for a wheelchair when going any
sort of distance. After this incident, Plaintiff was
transferred to URF.
December 5, 2016, Defendant Buchanan cancelled
Plaintiff's wheelchair detail because she did not believe
that Plaintiff required it. Plaintiff states that Defendant
Buchanan spoke to him in a rude and demeaning manner. On
December 30, 2016, Plaintiff was exiting the dining room on
the east side of URF when he slipped and fell on the
sidewalk, which was covered in ice. Plaintiff landed on his
back and hip, and also struck the back of his head on the
sidewalk. Plaintiff lost consciousness and when he regained
awareness, three officers were helping him into Health
inside Health Services, Defendant Headly began asking
Plaintiff questions. Plaintiff's vision was blurred and
he was unable to make out what Defendant Headley was saying.
At this point, Defendant Headley began yelling at Plaintiff
in an angry tone. Defendant Headley gave Plaintiff a hot
water bottle and a package of Motrin, but then took the hot
water bottle back after falsely asserting that Plaintiff
already had one. Defendant Headley then screamed at Plaintiff
to “get out, ” and sent Plaintiff across the ice
covered sidewalk back to his cell without any assistance,
despite Plaintiff's extreme dizziness. On December 31,
2016, Plaintiff filed a grievance complaining that he was
being denied necessary pain medications for his back, knee,
and head injury, and that he was still being denied a
claims that following his accident, he was in so much pain
that he could barely walk to the medication line or to meals
and that on January 1, 2017, Plaintiff suffered from chest
pains. Plaintiff was taken to War Memorial Hospital, where he
received an EKG and a chest x-ray. The doctor told Plaintiff
that he was suffering from a bruised chest due to the fall.
Plaintiff described his symptoms and the doctor wrote a
prescription for Toradol for pain, Robaxin for rib pain, and
Antivert for dizziness. Once back at URF, Defendant Headley
told Plaintiff that no medications had been ordered.
Plaintiff never received any medications.
January 3, 2017, Plaintiff was seen by Defendant Buchanan,
who asked Plaintiff about the medications he was taking and
the location of his pain. Plaintiff told Defendant Buchanan
that his back, neck, hip, knees, and arm were “messed
up, ” and that he had difficulty understanding
conversations since his head injury. Plaintiff also stated
that he could only stand for two to three minutes before his
back pain became unbearable and that his hip hurt
continuously. Defendant requested a review of Plaintiff's
hip x-ray. On January 7, 2017, Defendant Buchanan reissued
Plaintiff's wheelchair detail. Defendant Buchanan told
Plaintiff that the fall had affected blood flow to
Plaintiff's hip and that he would likely need a hip
17, 2017, Plaintiff had hip replacement surgery at Bronson
Hospital. Plaintiff claims that surgery was required because
of the delay in treatment after his fall on December 30,
2016. Plaintiff states that he continues to suffer from pain
and dizziness and that he is still being denied needed pain
medication and the assistance of a wheelchair. Plaintiff
seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as
declaratory and injunctive relief.
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 ...