United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION
JANET
T. NEFF, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This is
a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner 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
against Defendants Harry, Page, and Unknown Party #1 through
Unknown Party # 5. The Court also denies Plaintiff's
motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 4).
Discussion
I.
Factual Allegations
Plaintiff
is presently incarcerated with the Michigan Department of
Corrections (MDOC) at the Macomb Correctional Facility (MRF)
in New Haven, Macomb County, Michigan. The events about which
he complains, however, occurred at the Earnest C. Brooks
Correctional Facility (LRF) in Muskegon Heights, Muskegon
County, Michigan. Plaintiff sues the following LRF officials:
Warden (unknown) Harry; Correctional Officer (unknown) Dorch;
Mental Health Case Manager (unknown) Duiker; Prison Counselor
(unknown) Ross; Inspectors (unknown) Page and Unknown Party
#4; Sergeant Bridgette (last name unknown) (Unknown Party
#1); unknown lieutenant (Unknown Party #2); unknown shift
commander (Unknown Party #3); and unknown prisoner counselor
(Unknown Party #5).
According
to the complaint, on July 8, 2017, Plaintiff's cellmate,
Randy Deshawn Clay, stabbed Plaintiff with a broken ink pen
just above Plaintiff's left eye. Plaintiff began to yell
to the third-shift officer, who responded. When the officer
opened the door, Plaintiff exited, and the officer saw that
Plaintiff was covered with blood. The officer ordered
prisoner Clay to go to the officer's station. As Clay
walked down the hall, the officer at the station noticed that
Clay had thrown an object into the garbage container.
Following a search of the container, the officer found the
broken pen, which was covered in blood.
Plaintiff
was ordered by the sergeant and the lieutenant (Unknown Party
# 1 and #2) to sit in the TV room, where he was interviewed.
Prisoner Clay was placed in the card room. After his
interview, Plaintiff was taken to the hospital, where he
received six sutures in his eyebrow. When he returned to the
prison, he was placed in segregation. Plaintiff was released
from segregation the following day, without having been
issued a misconduct charge.
Three
weeks before the assault, Plaintiff complained to Defendant
Dorch that prisoner Clay had made threats to kill him, and he
told Dorch that he was afraid to stay in the same cell as
Clay. Defendant Dorch told Plaintiff to leave the
officer's station and to write a grievance.
Sometime
prior to the attack, Plaintiff also complained to Defendant
Ross that Clay had threatened to stab Plaintiff, and
Plaintiff asked to be moved from the cell. Plaintiff
explained to Ross that Clay was bragging about how he had
tried to severely harm his last cellmate, and the assault was
one of the reasons Clay's security level had been
increased from Level I to Level II. Ross told Plaintiff that
he would talk with Clay, but he never did.
The
same week he spoke to Ross, Plaintiff spoke to his mental
health case manager, Defendant Duiker. Plaintiff told Duiker
that inmate Clay had made threats against Plaintiff and had
threatened to kill him. Duiker asked Plaintiff to be more
specific about the nature of the threats, but Plaintiff told
Duiker that she should have access to his file and that the
file would speak for itself. Defendant Duiker told Plaintiff
that, if he could not be more specific, he should return to
his cell.
Following
the assault by Clay, Plaintiff filed grievances against
Defendants Dorch, Ross, and Duiker, claiming that all three
had violated his rights, because, despite knowing about
Defendant Clay's assaultive risk and his increased
security level, they took no action to protect Plaintiff.
Plaintiff
further alleges that during time he was incarcerated at LRF,
he witnessed a substantial number of inmate assaults, which
should have put Defendants on increased notice of a risk to
Plaintiff. Plaintiff specifically references threats between
two unknown cellmates in 2013 or 2014 that went unresolved,
resulting in the death of one inmate. He also claims that,
one month before the assault at issue here, an inmate housed
at LRF in Level IV complained that he and his cellmate were
at the point of seriously hurting one another. When officials
failed to take sufficient action, one prisoner was suffocated
by the other. In addition, Plaintiff alleges that a female
correctional officer was attacked by a prisoner after
officials had been warned by numerous prisoners that she was
at risk. Plaintiff contends that LRF officials made efforts
to cover up the incidents. Further, because Plaintiff's
assault was not life-threatening, officials advised Plaintiff
that they would not be contacting the Michigan State Police.
Plaintiff
contends that one day after he submitted his § 1983
claim, he was placed on emergency transfer status. As the
result of his transfer, Plaintiff lost his prison job as a
lead baker at LRF, which he alleges is his only source of
income. He also alleges that his placement in Level-II
housing at the Michigan Reformatory is significantly more
restrictive than Plaintiff's prior Level-II housing at
LRF. Plaintiff alleges that his protected First Amendment
activity was the motivating force behind his transfer, though
he acknowledges that about two dozen other inmates from his
unit were transferred. Plaintiff asserts that the loss of his
income and the ...