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.

Juide v. Michigan Department of Corrections

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

October 10, 2019

MACK JUIDE, # 441625, Plaintiff,
v.
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL., Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL

          SEAN F. COX UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. Introduction

         Mack Juide is a Michigan state prisoner currently incarcerated at the Oaks Correctional Facility in Manistee, Michigan. Juide, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, alleges violations of the First and Eighth Amendments, the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq. (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a) (Rehabilitation Act), and the Michigan Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.1101, et seq. (PDCRA).

         Juide names seven defendants: the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) and six MDOC employees. He seeks monetary and injunctive relief. For the reasons discussed below, the Court dismisses Juide's claims filed under the PDCRA, his claims under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act against Defendants Klee, Chapman, White, Martin, Tanner, and Donaghy in their individual capacities, and his Eighth Amendment claims against the MDOC and against Defendants Klee, Chapman, White, Martin, Tanner, and Donaghy in their official capacities.

         II. Factual Allegations

         Juide states that he is paralyzed from the chest down, and confined to a wheelchair. (Compl. at 4.) According to the complaint, the occurrences giving rise to this lawsuit took place while Juide was incarcerated at the Gus Harrison Correctional Facility (ARF) in 2016.

         Juide claims that while at ARF, he was housed in 3-Unit, “which is ostensibly equipped” to accommodate physically handicapped prisoners. (Comp. at 4.) The handicapped accommodations include a wheelchair lift “to facilitate movement for wheelchair-bound prisoners who are stationed on the lower level of the housing unit.” (Id.) But, Juide asserts, the wheelchair lift was subject to “routine and protracted episodes of disrepair, dilapidation and being out of service.” (Id.) When the wheelchair lift was not functioning, Juide was confined to the lower level of 3-Unit. His confinement to the lower level meant Juide was deprived of access to fresh air and exercise, telephone usage, electronic mail, legal materials and the ability conduct research, healthcare, and medically necessary equipment for hygienic elimination of bodily wastes. (Id. at 4-5.)

         On July 14, 2016, Juide filed a grievance naming defendants Klee, Chapman, Martin, Tanner, and Donaghy, alleging that their failure to maintain the wheelchair lift in working condition violated the ADA. (Id. at 5.) Juide claims that, the day after he filed this grievance, defendants placed him in segregation. (Id. at 5.) The segregation cell was not handicap accessible, forcing Juide to “sit[] upright in his wheelchair for over 13 hours without accessible toilet facilities and languishing in his own bodily waste.” (Id.) The next day, Juide was transferred to a different, level IV, housing unit that also lacked an operable wheelchair lift and accessible toilet facilities. (Id.) Juide alleges that he “wallow[ed] in his own waste for nearly 72 hours.” (Id.)

         II. Legal Standard

         Under 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).

         Federal 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).

         III. Discussion

         A. Michigan Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act

         Michigan's Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PDCRA) provides that a person may not “[d]eny an individual the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of a place of public accommodation or public service because of a disability that is unrelated to the individual's ability to utilize and benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations or because of the use by an individual of adaptive devices or aids.” Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.1302(a). The statute specifically excludes application to actions or decisions regarding an individual serving a sentence of imprisonment. See Mich. ...


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.