United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
LANCE ADAM GOLDMAN, No. 542675, Plaintiff,
HATATU ELUM, et. al., Defendants.
Stephanie Dawkins Davis
AND ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL, GRANTING MOTION TO REOPEN
CASE [ECF NO. 16], GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
MOTIONS TO SUPPLEMENT COMPLAINT [ECF NOS. 14, 15, 18],
DENYING MOTION TO EXTEND TIME [ECF NO. 17] AS MOOT, AND
DENYING EMERGENCY MOTION [ECF NO. 19]
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.
Lance Adam Goldman is a state prisoner currently incarcerated
at the Saginaw Correctional Facility in Freeland, Michigan.
Mr. Goldman filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 which this Court dismissed without
prejudice on April 5, 2019, applying the “three
strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (ECF
No. 11.) Mr. Goldman now seeks to reopen the case (ECF No.
16) and to supplement his complaint (ECF Nos. 14, 15, 18, and
19). Upon review of Plaintiff's motions, supplemental
complaints, and exhibits, the Court will reopen this case and
deny in part and grant in part Mr. Goldman's motions to
supplement. The Court also orders Plaintiff to file an
amended complaint as explained further below.
SUMMARY OF CLAIMS
best of the Court's understanding, Plaintiff has asserted
the following claims in his various pleadings:
Complaint (ECF No. 1)
Sexual assault claims again Defendants Londo and Grace.
Retaliatory transfers by G. Robert Cotton Correctional
Facility (JCF) defendants.
Conspiracy by MDOC Director Heidi Washington and other MDOC
defendants to house Plaintiff with dangerous inmates, for the
purposes of having him assaulted.
failure to provide mental or medical health treatment as
necessary following the sexual assaults.
Complaint and Motion for Leave to Supplement
(ECF Nos. 14 and 15)
Conspiracy by the MDOC and Defendant Michigan State Police
Gauthier to cover up the sexual assaults. (Supp. Compl. at 9,
ECF No. 14, PageID 242; M. for Lv. to Supp. at 2, ECF No. 15,
Interference by Defendants Daniel Manville and Michigan State
University with Plaintiff's ability to investigate his
case. (Supp. Compl. at 13, PageID 246.)
Inadequate clean air and ventilation. (M. for Lv. to Supp. at
3-5, PageID 297-299.)
failure to treat Plaintiff's symptoms of HPV,
establishing imminent danger. (Id. at 6, PageID
“Emergency Motion” to supplement (ECF No.
Plaintiff's assault by a cellmate while in Cotton
Correctional Facility (JCF). (Em'y M. at 3, ECF. No. 19,
JCF corrections officer encouraging assaults by fellow
prisoners. (Id. at 5, PageID 383.)
motions to reopen case (ECF No. 16) and to supplement
complaint (ECF No. 18) contained no new claims or parties.
In Forma Pauperis
the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996
(“PLRA”), Pub. L. No. 104 134, 110 Stat.
1321(1996), a prisoner may not commence an action without
prepayment of the filing fee in some form. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Section 1915 provides indigent
prisoners the opportunity to make a “downpayment”
of a partial filing fee and pay the remainder in
installments. Miller v. Campbell, 108 F.Supp.2d 960,
962 (W.D. Tenn. 2000); see also 28 U.S.C. §
PLRA also contains a “three-strikes” provision
which “prohibits prisoners who have brought multiple
frivolous appeals from receiving pauper status.”
Coleman v. Tollefson, 733 F.3d 175, 176 (6th Cir.
2013), as amended on denial of reh'g and reh'g en
banc (Jan. 17, 2014), aff'd, 135 S.Ct. 1759
(2015). A court must dismiss a case where the prisoner seeks
to proceed in forma pauperis if on three or more
previous occasions a federal court has dismissed the