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.

Staley v. Unknown Dolittle

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

December 3, 2019

KENNETH STALEY, Plaintiff,
v.
UNKNOWN DOLITTLE, Defendant.

          OPINION

          Paul L. Maloney 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 Eighth Amendment claim against the named Defendant for failure to state a claim.

         Discussion

         I. Factual allegations

         Plaintiff is presently incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) at the Ionia Correctional Facility (ICF) in Ionia, Ionia County, Michigan. The events about which he complains occurred at that facility. Plaintiff sues Registered Nurse Unknown Dolittle.

         Plaintiff alleges that on March 26, 2019, during morning med-line, Defendant refused to give him his medically prescribed “Boost, ” which is a protein supplement drink. Defendant initially told Plaintiff that he was required to drink his Boost in her presence, and Plaintiff replied that he was usually able to keep the Boost until after medication was passed out in the unit. Plaintiff asked to see the pertinent rule, but Defendant refused. Plaintiff then stated that he would drink the Boost in front of her, but that he was going to file a grievance on Defendant if she was wrong about the rule. At this point, Defendant left the area, stating that she did not have the Boost with her and had to go get it.

         When Defendant returned to the unit for noon med-line, Plaintiff asked for his Boost. Defendant stated that Plaintiff was not getting his Boost because he had a bad attitude. Plaintiff stated that he was going to file a grievance and Defendant responded “fuck your grievance dumbass, ” and slammed Plaintiff's window flap. Plaintiff states that he has a special accommodation to receive Boost twice a day in order to prevent him from losing weight. Plaintiff did not receive Boost at all on March 26, 2019.

         Plaintiff filed a grievance, which was denied: “It is documented on the grievant's MAR [medication administration record] that he refused his Boost on 03-26-19 am and was inappropriate to the nurse.” (ECF No. 1-1, PageID.9.) In his step II grievance appeal, Plaintiff protested that he did not behave like “a fool” until the lunch med-line, after Defendant had already refused to give him his Boost. (Id. at PageID.12.)

         In the step III grievance response, R. Harbaugh, RN stated:

Grievant alleges the Nurse was unprofessional and denied him access to his medication.
All relevant information within the electronic medical record has been reviewed. Step I and Step II appropriately addressed this grievance and are affirmed at the Step III appeal. After reviewing the Electronic Medical Record, there is no information to substantiate or refute your claim. Your health care needs are being appropriately addressed at this time, you are encouraged to kite Health Care [with] any health related concerns.

         (Id. at PageID.13.)

         Plaintiff states that Defendant's conduct violated the First and Eighth Amendments. Plaintiff seeks damages.

         II. Failure ...


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.