United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
T. Neff, United States District Judge.
a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21,
the Court is permitted to drop parties sua sponte
when the parties have been misjoined. Pursuant to that rule,
the Court will drop as misjoined Defendants Parish, Bassett,
Spencley, Nichols, Vogue, McGlone, Wert, Anderson, and
Martinson and dismiss Plaintiff's claims against them
regard to the claims that remain, 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). Reviewing
Plaintiff's remaining claims against that standard, the
Court will dismiss all of Plaintiff's claims against
remaining Defendants J. Dalton, J. Bellinger, Patricia Lamb,
and Corizon Healthcare, Inc.
is presently incarcerated with the Michigan Department of
Corrections (MDOC) at the Oaks Correctional Facility (ECF) in
Manistee, Michigan. The events about which he complains
occurred at that facility. Plaintiff sues ECF healthcare
providers J. Dalton, J. Bellinger, and Patricia Lamb as well
as Corizon Healthcare, Inc. He also sues ECF Warden Les
Parish; Grievance Coordinator T. Bassett; Assistant Deputy
Warden J. Spencley; and Corrections Officers B. Nichols,
Unknown Vogue, Unknown McGlone, Unknown Wert, Unknown
Anderson, and Unknown Martinson.
arrived at ECF on April 11, 2019. Plaintiff suffers from
Graves disease. On May 14, 2019, Plaintiff saw Defendant
Dalton, a Corizon employee according to Plaintiff, for annual
lab work. He complained of Graves disease symptoms and asked
to see an endocrinologist and to be treated with the
medication Tapazole. Instead, Dalton ordered stool samples
and x-rays of Plaintiff's neck, chest, and stomach.
Petitioner attaches the results of the lab work and x-rays to
his complaint. (ECF No. 1-1, PageID.25.) Defendant Dalton
reported that “[n]o significant abnormality
exists.” (Id.) Nonetheless, she invited
Plaintiff to kite for re-evaluation if his symptoms did not
grieved Dalton two days after he met with her. He claimed he
was being deprived of medical treatment that the deprivation
was affecting his heart. (5/16/19 Grievance, ECF No. 1-1,
PageID.20-24.) Defendant Bellinger responded to the
grievance, denying it because “[Plaintiff's]
disagreement with the treatment plan [did] not constitute a
denial of care.” (Id.,
appealed Bellinger's response, claiming that Corizon did
not treat preexisting conditions or African Americans for
pre-existing conditions. (Id., PageID.23.) Defendant
Lamb denied Petitioner's appeal. She reviewed the medical
record, noted that testing did not identify any underlying
pathology. (Id., PageID.22.) She also noted that
Plaintiff's continued concerns had prompted an
unidentified ECF nurse to refer Plaintiff to a medical
provider for further evaluation. (Id.)
appealed Defendant Lamb's resolution of his first appeal.
He was again denied relief. Plaintiff claims that Defendant
Corizon altered his lab results. (Compl., ECF No. 1,
PageID.6.) Plaintiff also claims that Corizon has sent a
white prisoner, Rouse, to Jackson for treatment of
pre-existing conditions, but refused to send Plaintiff
because he is African-American. (Id., PageID.7.)
Plaintiff also contends that Corizon does not provide
healthcare to African-American prisoners as evidenced by the
fact that Plaintiff complained of Graves disease symptoms for
years and Corizon forces him to pay a co-pay for treatment.
(Id., PageID.6.) Finally, Plaintiff complains that
Defendant Dalton refused to give Plaintiff a snack bag and
did not allow Plaintiff to see a dietician.
Complaints about food service
26, 2019, Plaintiff filed a grievance raising two issues
relating to food service: (1) for a particular meal
combination-cornbread hot dogs, potatoes, and beans-the
kitchen routinely substituted corn for potatoes; and (2)
meals are not served hot. (5/26/2019 Grievance, ECF No. 1-1,
PageID.26.) Plaintiff claims the corn for potatoes
substitution results in a calorie reduction which makes it
difficult for Plaintiff, a borderline diabetic, to maintain
his weight. Defendants T Bassett and J. Spencley rejected the
grievance because it raised multiple issues. Plaintiff
appealed the rejection. Defendant Parish denied the appeal.
Complaint about requiring inmates to wear a shirt
19, Plaintiff was exercising in the yard. He pulled the front
of his shirt over his head to relieve himself from the heat.
Defendant Martinson told Plaintiff he could not wear his
shirt that way and directed Plaintiff to pull his shirt down.
Plaintiff refused and gave his identification card to
Martinson and told Martinson to write a ticket. Martinson
went inside to talk with Vogue. Plaintiff claims Martinson
returned with instructions from Vogue to order Plaintiff to
return to his cell under threat of placement in segregation.
wrote grievances with regard to the shirt issue. Defendants
Bassett and Spencley rejected the grievances. Plaintiff
contends there is no justification for implementing a policy
that prohibits male inmates from showing their “chest
nipples.” (Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.8.) He claims the
policy is illegal, violates human rights, and fails to
acknowledge health conditions, such as Plaintiff's Graves
disease which affects heat regulation.
Complaint about drinking water
claims the water in his cell tastes salty. He has been told
that the water is softened. Plaintiff contends the water is
contaminated and that corrections officers bring their own
water. Defendant Parish refuses to explain. Defendants
Nichols and Spencley rejected a grievance about it.
28, Plaintiff had a confrontation with Defendant Vogue
regarding his bowl. Plaintiff notes that he is indigent and
does not possess a drinking cup. Instead, he uses a bowl.
Vogue threatened to take the bowl after Plaintiff started
filing grievances. Vogue called Plaintiff out of his cell and
then ordered Plaintiff to not stop at the water fountain to
fill his bowl with drinking water. Vogue ordered Plaintiff to
give up the bowl. Plaintiff refused to yield the bowl instead
offering his ID card. Vogue aggressively snatched the card
“assaulting” Plaintiff with the card such that it
scratched Plaintiff's hand as Vogue yanked it
wrote a ticket against Plaintiff for disobeying a direct
order. The ticket reviewer reduced it from a Class II offense
to a Class III offense. Plaintiff claims Vogue was enraged
and threatened to have Plaintiff's throat cut. He also
threatened to commit a serious assault against Plaintiff.
Electronic law library
Wert would not let Plaintiff use the electronic law library
even though Prisoner Counselor Holden had given Plaintiff
permission. Plaintiff threatened to grieve Wert; Wert wrote a
ticket on Plaintiff. ...