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.

Burley v. Corizon Health Inc.

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

May 7, 2019

EDWARD BURLEY, Plaintiff,
v.
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.

          R. Steven Whalen Magistrate Judge.

          OPINION AND ORDER PARTIALLY DISMISSING COMPLAINT

          DAVID M. LAWSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Michigan 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 claim.

         I.

         This is 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.

         The 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.

         II.

         In the 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; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune ...

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.