United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
TERRENCE G. BERG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
a civil action brought by a federal prisoner. The Court has
granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Under
the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110
Stat. 1321 (1996), the Court is required to dismiss any
prisoner action 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) and 1915A(b). The
Court must accept Plaintiff's allegations as true, unless
they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton
v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). Applying this
standard, the action will be dismissed because it fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
was serving a sentence of imprisonment at the Federal
Correctional Institution at Milan, Michigan during the
alleged incident and at the time the complaint was
filed. The complaint names Lt. Tucker and C.
White, a nurse at the facility, as Defendants. Plaintiff
claims that on March 16, 2019, he was working as an orderly
and was assigned to be on-call to clean up any spilled blood
at the facility's health service unit. When Nurse White
called him to the unit to clean up vomit,  Plaintiff
refused, on the grounds that he was only on-call to clean up
blood, not vomit. He was directed to report to Tucker, who
sent Plaintiff to administrative detention for his refusal to
work. Plaintiff claims that he was sanctioned with six days
of administrative detention and ninety days loss of
“trulinks” and commissary privileges.
Failure to State a Claim
complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a
claim if the allegations, taken as true, show the plaintiff
is not entitled to relief.” Jones v. Bock, 549
U.S. 199, 215 (2007). Thus, dismissal is appropriate where
the plaintiff fails to plead sufficient factual content to
permit the court “to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009);
see also Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Dismissal for failure to state a claim
is also appropriate where the allegations, taken as true,
establish that relief is barred by an affirmative defense
such as failure to exhaust administrative remedies, statute
of limitations, or absolute immunity. Jones, 549
U.S. at 215.
alleges that the actions of Defendants violated his rights
under the Eighth Amendment. The Eighth Amendment imposes a
constitutional limitation on the power of the states to
punish those convicted of crimes. Punishment may not be
“barbarous” nor may it contravene society's
“evolving standards of decency.” Rhodes v.
Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 345-46 (1981). The deprivation
alleged must result in the denial of the “minimal
civilized measure of life's necessities.”
Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347; see also Wilson v.
Yaklich, 148 F.3d 596, 600-01 (6th Cir. 1998). The
Eighth Amendment is only concerned with “deprivations
of essential food, medical care, or sanitation” or
“other conditions intolerable for prison
confinement.” Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 348
(citation omitted). Moreover, “[n]ot every unpleasant
experience a prisoner might endure while incarcerated
constitutes cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning
of the Eighth Amendment.” Ivey v. Wilson, 832
F.2d 950, 954 (6th Cir. 1987).
fails to allege facts suggesting that he has been deprived of
the “minimal civilized measure of life's
necessities.” Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 348. The
fact that Plaintiff was confined in administrative detention
for six days and lost commissary privileges for ninety days
falls far short of implicating the Eighth Amendment. The
Supreme Court has held that placement in segregation is a
routine discomfort that is “‘part of the penalty
that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against
society.'” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S.
1, 9 (1992) (quoting Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347). The
Sixth Circuit has also held that without a showing that basic
human needs were not met, the denial of privileges as a
result of administrative segregation cannot establish an
Eighth Amendment violation. See Evans v. Vinson, 427
Fed.Appx. 437, 443 (6th Cir. 2011); Harden-Bey v.
Rutter, 524 F.3d 789, 795 (6th Cir. 2008).
Plaintiff's complaint fails to state an Eighth Amendment
conducted the review required by the Prison Litigation Reform
Act, the Court determines that Plaintiff's action will be
dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b).
Court must next decide whether an appeal of this action would
be in good faith within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(3). See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d
601, 611 (6th Cir. 1997). For the same reasons that the Court
dismisses the action, the Court discerns no good-faith basis
for an appeal. Leave to appeal in forma pauperis is therefore
IS SO ORDERED.