United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
J. JONKER CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a civil rights action brought by a jail detainee under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act,
Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (PLRA), the Court
is required to dismiss any prisoner action brought under
federal law if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks
monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A; 42 U.S.C. §
1997e(c). The Court must read Plaintiff's pro se
complaint indulgently, see Haines v. Kerner, 404
U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and accept Plaintiff's allegations
as true, unless they are clearly irrational or wholly
incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33
(1992). Applying these standards, the Court will dismiss
Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim.
is presently detained at the Cass County Jail, awaiting
trial. Plaintiff sues the following employees of Cass County:
Captain Kevin L. Garrelts; Undersheriff Clinton D. Roach;
Sheriff Richard J. Behnke; and Registered Nurses Suesane
(unknown) and (unknown) Salisbury.
alleges that he has seizures from time to time due to a
medical condition. He has been detained at the Cass County
Jail since January 17, 2019. Within a few days after his
arrival at the jail, he told a nurse at the nurse's
station about his condition. Plaintiff claims that she was
supposed to send out a medical release to obtain his medical
records, but she did not do so until a few weeks later, after
Plaintiff experienced his first seizure in the jail.
February 13, Plaintiff suffered a “grand mal”
seizure in his cell. (See Compl., ECF No. 1,
PageID.5.) His bunkmate attempted to use the emergency call
button to notify the guards, but the button did not work. The
bunkmate was able to get guards' attention by kicking the
door of the cell. After Plaintiff regained consciousness, a
nurse checked Plaintiff's blood pressure at the
nurse's station, determined that he was “fine,
” and sent him back to his cell. (Id.) Another
nurse tried to obtain Plaintiff's medical records using
the medical release, but was not successful.
later, Plaintiff met with a doctor who tried to determine how
Plaintiff had treated his condition before his detention.
Plaintiff told the doctor that he used marijuana. Plaintiff
alleges that he has had two more seizures since February 13,
but jail staff have not given him any medication or other
treatment for his condition.
filed a grievance concerning his seizure(s). Defendant
Garrelts held a hearing on the grievance and prepared a
report containing “false” information.
(Id., PageID.3.) Plaintiff told Garrelts that
Officer Mollberg helped Plaintiff up off the floor
after Plaintiff suffered a seizure, but Garrelts
allegedly wrote in his report that Mollberg actually
witnessed the seizure.
apparently sues Defendants because he has not been given
treatment for his condition. He also alleges that the
conditions in the jail are unsafe for the following reasons:
the jail does not have medical staff present for 24 hours a
day, 7 days a week; it is difficult to notify staff of a
medical emergency, as there are three emergency call buttons
in the cell block but none inside the cells; and there is
insufficient monitoring of the cells, as the guards generally
walk around the cell block about once an hour.
addition, Plaintiff claims that Defendants have deprived him
of his right to a speedy trial because he has been held in
jail for over 180 days for a crime he did not commit, without
evidence that he committed the crime.
relief, Plaintiff apparently seeks an unspecified injunction.
After noting the alleged deficiencies in medical staffing and
in his ability to notify staff of emergencies, Plaintiff asks
“to be taken care of.” (Id., PageID.7.)
He does not indicate what this means.
Failure to state a claim
complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it
fails “‘to give the defendant fair notice of what
the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.'” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). While a complaint need not contain
detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's allegations
must include more than labels and conclusions.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“Threadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”). The
court must determine whether the complaint contains
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at
570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 679. Although the plausibility standard is not equivalent
to a “‘probability requirement,' . . . it
asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has
acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “[W]here
the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more
than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has