Buy This Entire Record For
Burley v. Corizon Health Inc.
United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
May 7, 2019
EDWARD BURLEY, Plaintiff,
CORIZON HEALTH INC., MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, DR. SCOTT HOLMES, VICTORIA MERREN, JOANN BRIDGFORD, K. STEVENS, T. LAMBART, S. AIKEN, DR. ABDELLATIF, DR. ROGER GURLACH, DR. KIM FARRIS, HEALTH UNIT MANAGER COOPER, J. BUZKIRK, WILLIE SMITH, WARDEN WINN, HEIDI WASHINGTON, NURSE PRACTITIONER MUZIRMAN, MELINDA BRAMAN, SHANE GREY, REGISTERED NURSE SCHADD, C. BRZYSKI, K. BUSSELL, RANDALL HAAS, G. STEPHENSON, J. KOENIGSKNECHT, HEALTH UNIT MANAGER PELON, J. QUIROGA, J. PRELESNIK, K. ALBERCOOK, K. STODDARD, ASST. RESIDENT UNIT MANAGER QUNITON, RESIDENT UNIT MANAGER TYLUTKI, D. GONZALEZ, K. MCKEE, ASSISTANT DEPUTY DIRECTOR RIVARD, CHAPLIN MEYERS, DONNA SCHAFER, DR. ALISON GILBERT, TRESSA HAGEMANN, T. GUMPER, DEPUTY WARDEN LAFLAVE, DR. K. PAPENDICK, RESIDENT UNIT MANAGER KING, DEPUTY WARDEN MCROBERTS, PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, K. HAMBLIN, K. BUSSELL, RICK SNYDER, JENNIFER GRANHOLM, DANIEL HEYNS, PRINCIPAL GUMPER, ASSISTANT RESIDENT UNIT SUPERVISOR KING, DAVID LEACH, CLASSIFICATION DIRECTOR HARTWIG, and GRIEVANCE COORDINATOR WHITFORD, Defendants.
Steven Whalen Magistrate Judge.
OPINION AND ORDER PARTIALLY DISMISSING
M. LAWSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
prisoner Edward Burley has filed a pro se civil
rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Court has granted
him leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee for
this action. The Court has completed the screening required
by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A, and now
concludes that much of the complaint must be dismissed
summarily because it does not state a cognizable federal
not the plaintiff's first foray into the federal courts.
See, e.g., Burley v. Miller, 241 F.Supp.3d 828 (E.D.
Mich. 2017). Most of the allegations in the complaint concern
prison medical care and accommodations for the
plaintiff's hearing disability, focusing on the failure
to provide him with a hearing aid for his left ear (he has
one for his right ear), the failure to refer him for proper
audiological evaluation; the failure to repair or replace his
right-ear hearing aid; the failure to provide him with an
interpreter for medical appointments (causing delays in
treatment), grievance and classification hearings, religious
services, and prison programs (denying him participation);
and the failure to provide access to phones for the hearing
impaired, other communication devices, visual aids and pagers
for emergency drills, closed captioned videos for dangerous
materials, and lights on maintenance vehicles. The plaintiff
also raises claims concerning his religious dietary
restrictions and his ability to practice his religion, the
confiscation of and lack of access to his legal materials
while in segregation, his access to the courts,
discrimination and verbal harassment, retaliation, his right
of association, conspiracy, and his equal protection rights.
plaintiff names as defendants Corizon Health Inc., the
Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC), several prison
medical care providers, the current and former MDOC
directors, several MDOC and prison administrators, several
prison employees, Prison Health Services (PHS), and two
former Michigan governors and sues them in their individual
and official capacities. The plaintiff seeks injunctive
relief, monetary damages, and any other relief.
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), Congress mandated that
the Court screen for colorable merit every prisoner complaint
filed against a state or governmental person or entity. 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(a) (“The court shall
review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as
soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil
action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental
entity or officer or employee of a governmental
entity.” (Emphasis added)). In addition, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) states:
Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that
may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any
time if the court determines that -
(B) the action or appeal:
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune