United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL AND DIRECTING
PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE DEFENDANTS' ADDRESSES
V. PARKER U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
a pro se civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. James Reilly (“Plaintiff”), is confined at
the St. Clair County Jail, awaiting trial on multiple
criminal sexual conduct charges. Plaintiff names fifteen
defendants. Plaintiff alleges she has been denied adequate
medical care, that food handling procedures are unsanitary
and dangerous, and that she has been denied her right of
access to the courts. Plaintiff has been granted leave to
proceed without prepayment of the fees for this action.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). For the reasons
discussed below, the Court is dismissing Defendants
Donnellon, Buckley, Roberts, Lake Huron Medical, Greg
McConnell, Karl Tomion, Howard Heidemann, Duke Dunn, Jeffrey
Bohm, David Rushing, Bill Gratopp, Derik Evenson, and Kyle
Adams. The Court also is dismissing Plaintiff's
food-related and access to the courts claims.
Complaint chiefly concerns the medical care she has received
since her detention at the St. Clair County Jail. She claims
that, upon her entry to the jail on September 29, 2019,
Defendant Tarrah, a licensed practical nurse, confiscated her
medications, including medication prescribed to regulate her
heart rhythm and estrogen. (Compl. at 2-3.) Plaintiff was
without the medications for several days, leading to an
episode of severe chest pain and difficulty breathing.
(Id. at 2-3.)
states that, in addition to heart problems, she suffers from
damaged discs and nerves, which cause excruciating pain.
Plaintiff alleges that she was not provided with consistent
or adequate dosages of pain medication, and lacked sufficient
funds to purchase medication from the commissary.
(Id. at 4.) On November 16, 2018, the jail ceased
providing Plaintiff even intermittent access to pain
medication. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff filed a grievance.
Several days later, Defendant Colleen Spencer, a nursing
supervisor, visited Plaintiff and told her not to file
additional grievances. (Id.) Defendant Spencer also
allegedly denied Plaintiff pain medication. (Id.)
further claims that she has suffered from acute intestinal
distress for over 200 days caused by inadequate quality of
food and unsafe food handling. (Id. at 6.) Finally,
Plaintiff alleges she has had difficulty obtaining necessary
materials to prepare this complaint. (Id. at 6-7.)
the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996
(“PLRA”), the Court is required to sua
sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint
before service if it determines the action is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. See 42 U.S.C. §
1997e(c); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court is
similarly required to dismiss a complaint seeking redress
against government entities, officers, and employees that it
finds to be frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915A. A complaint is frivolous if it lacks
an arguable basis in law or in fact. Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992); Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint set
forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief, ” as well as
“a demand for the relief sought.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2), (3). The purpose of this rule is to “give the
defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley
v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957) and Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2)). While such notice pleading does not require
detailed factual allegations, it does require more than the
bare assertion of legal conclusions. Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555. Rule 8 “demands more than an unadorned,
the defendant-unlawfully-harmed me accusation.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
fails to satisfy minimum pleading requirements as to
Defendants Donnellon, Buckley, Roberts, Lake Huron Medical,
McConnell, Tomion, Heidemann, Dunn, Bohm, Rushing, Gratopp,
Evenson, and Adams because she fails to make sufficient
allegations to give these defendants fair notice of the
claim(s). Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. A complaint must
allege each defendant's personal involvement with the
alleged violation of federal rights. See Frazier v.
Michigan, 41 Fed.Appx. 762, 764 (6th Cir. 2002)
(dismissing claims where complaint did not allege which of
the named defendants were personally involved in or
responsible for each alleged violation of rights). Aside from
naming these individuals as defendants, Plaintiff makes no
specific allegations against them. The Court dismisses these
also fails to satisfy minimum pleading requirements for her
food-related and access to the courts claims. Plaintiff
alleges that the poor quality of the food and the unsanitary
manner in which it is stored and prepared have sickened her.
She also alleges she had difficulty obtaining necessary
materials for filing this lawsuit, including access to legal
research, paper, and ink. Plaintiff fails to connect either
of these claims to any specific defendant(s). She merely
alleges that these violations occur. These assertions are
insufficient to satisfy Rule 8's basic pleading standard
and the claims will be dismissed. This dismissal is without
prejudice so as not to foreclose Plaintiff from refiling this
claim to meet the requirements of Federal Rule 8 should she
opt to do so.