United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER GRANTING CORIZON'S MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc.
Victoria A. Roberts United States District Judge
Health, Inc. (”Corizon”) filed a Motion to
Dismiss Count 4 of Oscar Lee Watson's
(“Watson”) complaint for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. Watson is incarcerated at
the Gus Harrison Correctional Facility (“ARF”) in
Adrian, MI. He is confined to a wheelchair that he claims is
too small and in severe disrepair.
filed a grievance on September 3, 2017 and says he still has
not been provided with a suitable wheelchair. He also claims
on January 19, 2018 while using a designated handicapped
shower stall, the bench he was sitting on collapsed, he says
he injured his leg.
filed suit against several defendants: the Michigan
Department of Corrections (“MDOC”), Warden
Sherman Campbell, Deputy Warden David Messer, Mr. Ford - the
head of the Physical Plant at ARF, J. Siegel - Assistant
Resident Unit Supervisor, Corizon, and the ARF. Watson
alleges five counts in his complaint: Count 1 -MDOC and
Corizon violated his Eighth Amendment rights; Count 2 - MDOC
violated the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq.;
Count 3 -MDOC and Corizon violated the Michigan Persons with
Disabilities Civil Rights Act (“MPDCRA”), Mich.
Comp. Laws § 37.1101 et seq.; Count 4 -MDOC and
Corizon violated the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C.
§§ 701-7961; and Count 5 - Campbell, Messer, Ford,
and Siegel violated his rights under the ADA and the MPDCRA,
and the RA.
Court issued an order on March 6, 2018 dismissing Counts 1,
3, and 5 of Watson's complaint for failing to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. (Doc. # 6).
filed a motion to dismiss the only remaining claim against
it, Count 4, on March 29, 2018. Watson failed to timely
respond to Corizon's motion.
Motion is GRANTED.
Motion to Dismiss
motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) tests the legal
sufficiency of the complaint. RMI Titanium Co. v.
Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 78 F.3d 1125, 1134 (6th Cir.
1996). A court must “construe the complaint in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept its allegations
as true, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the
plaintiff.” Directv, Inc. v. Treesh, 487 F.3d
471, 476 (6th Cir. 2007). A complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter to ‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A
claim is plausible on its face “when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
complaint “must contain something more ... than ... a
statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a
legally cognizable right of action.” Twombly,
550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). Indeed, “a
plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds'
of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than
labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.”
Id.; see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
(“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.”). Moreover, the Court is “not bound to
accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual
allegation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation
Failure to Respond
Eastern District of Michigan's local court rules required
Watson to file a response if he opposed Corizon's Motion.
See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(c)(1) (“[a] respondent
opposing a motion must file a response, including a brief and
supporting documents then available”); E.D. Mich. LR
7.1(e)(1)(B) (“[a] response to a dispositive motion
must be filed within 21 days after service of the
a plaintiff fails to respond or to otherwise oppose a
defendant's motion, then the district court may deem the
plaintiff to have waived opposition to the motion.”
Humphrey v. United States AG Office, 279 Fed.Appx.
328, 331 (6th Cir. 2008) (internal citations and quotations
omitted). Although a court is within its discretion to
consider a defendant's motion unopposed due to a
plaintiff's lack of timely response, a court could
consider the motion's merits. See Zayed v. United
States, 221 F.Supp.2d 813, 815 n.5 (N.D. Ohio 2002)