United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING
PLAINTIFF'S CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
H. CLELAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Stephen Whiting, incarcerated at the La Porte County Jail in
La Porte, Indiana, filed this civil rights action in the
Northern District of Indiana. Because the events described in
Plaintiff's complaint occurred while he was incarcerated
in Michigan, the Northern District of Indiana transferred the
matter to this court. (Dkt. #3.) Having reviewed
Plaintiff's pleading, the court will dismiss the
complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
alleges that he fell and injured himself while shoveling snow
in the prison yard at the St. Louis Correctional Facility in
February 2015. Plaintiff went to the prison doctor, where he
received acetaminophen; when the pain continued to get worse,
he was given a muscle relaxer.
end of February, Plaintiff was unable to walk. He returned to
the prison doctor, but was kicked out of the office. The
doctor allegedly had an officer place Plaintiff in a
wheelchair; Plaintiff was then wheeled out and dumped on the
floor. The next day, Plaintiff was moved to a prison unit for
inmates who are confined to wheelchairs. He claims that he
was unable to eat or go to the bathroom because he was in so
much pain. Plaintiff was eventually placed on crutches, but
he was still suffering from pain so severe as to prevent him
from eating or engaging in other activities.
wrote several grievances and medical requests, which were
ignored. He claims that he often fell while walking on his
crutches, and he says that prison personnel would kick or
spit on him while he was on the ground. Several times he
defecated or urinated on himself because he was unable to
make it to the bathroom.
prison nurse was finally able to help. The nurse gave
Plaintiff shots that eased his pain and allowed him to start
eating and moving again. Plaintiff regained the ability to
walk, and he was released from administrative segregation.
point after his recovery, prison personnel asked Plaintiff
about the grievances he had filed. He was told that if he
signed off on the grievances, he would be released on parole;
if he did not sign them, the prison officials would contact
the parole board and have his parole revoked. In response to
the threat, Plaintiff signed off on his grievances.
is now seeking monetary damages against Defendants Michigan
Department of Corrections and St. Louis Correctional
has been allowed to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”)-without prepayment of fees. See 28 §
U.S.C. 1915(a); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d
601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997). The court must dismiss an IFP
complaint if the action is “frivolous or
malicious” or “fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted.” § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)- (ii).
“A complaint . . . is frivolous where it lacks an
arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
court considers whether the complaint “fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted” under the
familiar guidelines of Rule 8. Under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8(a)(2), a complaint must contain “a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” The complaint must demonstrate
more than just a possibility of wrongdoing; rather, “a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to ‘state a claim for relief that is plausible on
its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “[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 shown- that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Id. at 679. The court views the complaint in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff, and it accepts all
well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Tackett v. M
& G Polymers, USA, LLC, 561 F.3d 478, 488 (6th Cir.
2009). The court need not, however, “accept as true
legal conclusions or unwarranted factual inferences.”
Directv, Inc. v. Treesh, 487 F.3d 471, 476 (6th Cir.
complaint must be dismissed because his suit is barred by the
State of Michigan's ...