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.

Goldman v. Elum

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan

December 13, 2019

LANCE ADAM GOLDMAN, No. 542675, Plaintiff,
v.
HATATU ELUM, et. al., Defendants.

          Hon. Stephanie Dawkins Davis Judge

          OPINION AND VACATING PLAINTIFF'S IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS AND DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE

          Gershwin A. Drain United States District Judge

         Plaintiff Lance Adam Goldman, a state prisoner, filed this pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 7, 2019. The Court originally denied Plaintiff in forma pauperis status and dismissed his complaint, because more than three of his previous federal lawsuits were dismissed for frivolousness or failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. [ECF No. 11.] Following Plaintiff's motion to reopen his case and supplemental briefing, the Court granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis status based on his allegation of conditions that could establish imminent danger of serious physical injury. [ECF No. 21.] The Court also ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint to correct his failure to adequately plead the imminent danger claims. [Id.] Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint on October 7, 2019. [ECF No. 26.]

         Now having reviewed the amended complaint and Plaintiff's other pleadings, the Court has determined that Plaintiff does not meet the imminent danger exception of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and that the grant of pauper status was erroneous. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status is revoked and the case dismissed without prejudice.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff filed this action on February 7, 2019, while housed at Chippewa Correctional Facility in Kincheloe, Michigan. He alleged sexual assaults by two Michigan Department of Corrections officers, as well as retaliatory transfers, false misconduct charges, and a pattern and practice by the MDOC of placing him with violent prisoners to ensure he would be assaulted and killed. [ECF No. 1.] The Court dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice on April 5, 2019, for failure to pre-pay civil case filing fees. [ECF No. 11.]

         Plaintiff filed several motions to re-open and supplement his case. [See ECF Nos. 14-18.] He provided more detailed allegations of a cover-up of the sexual assaults and his symptoms of a sexually transmitted disease (as well as new claims unrelated to the assaults). [Mot. Lv. to Supp. at 2, 6, ECF No. 15, Page.ID 296, 300.]

         On July 22, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis status based on a showing of imminent danger of serious physical injury but ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. [ECF No. 21.] Specifically, the order observed that “Plaintiff has failed to allege, either in his Complaint or in any subsequent pleadings, who is liable for the failure to diagnose and treat his symptoms that have resulted from the sexual assaults.” [Id. at 12, Page.ID 399.] In his original complaint, Plaintiff alleged the following correctional facilities did not provide him adequate medical or mental health treatment “as a result of the rapes”: “OCF” (Ojibway Correctional Facility, Marenisco, Michigan), “AMF” (Baraga CF, Baraga, Michigan), “LMF” (Alger CF, Munising, Michigan), “URF” (Chippewa CF, Kincheloe, Michigan).[1] [Complt. at 53, ECF No. 1, PageID 53.] Plaintiff also alleged that the “MDOC” failed to treat or evaluate him for HPV (human papillomavirus). [Mot. for Lv. to Supp. at 6, ECF No. 15, PageID 300.]

         The Court directed Plaintiff

to file an Amended Complaint within 30 days of this order regarding his claims that he is not being treated for a serious medical need. The amended complaint must comply with the notice pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a)(2), [Bell Atlantic Corp. v.] Twombly[, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)] and [Ashcroft v.] Iqbal[, 556 U.S. 662, 681 (2009)], and must set forth not only the facts supporting deliberate indifference and a failure to treat his medical condition, but those defendants who are liable for this unconstitutional behavior.

[Id. at 21, Page.ID 408.] The order provided Plaintiff the standards for imminent danger and the requirements for notice pleading as to his allegations of imminent danger. [Id. at 4, 6-8, 11-12, Page.ID 391, 393-95, 398-99.] The order also dismissed numerous defendants and claims not related to the sexual assaults for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, misjoinder, and immunity.

         Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint on October 7, 2019. [ECF No. 26.] In it, Plaintiff named six healthcare providers as defendants: two nurses with unknown names; nurses Trudy Duquette and Sunbird (no first name provided); and two mental health care providers, also with unknown names. [Am. Complt. at 3 (Defendants 6 - 11), ECF No. 26, Page.ID 422.] All six defendants are at the Baraga Correctional Facility. [Id.]

         Plaintiff alleged that Unknown Nurse #1 looked at his wrists; Unknown Nurse #2 checked him for rectal bleeding; the four defendant nurses knew he was “‘raped, and ‘still bleeding, '” but failed to investigate or treat him. [Am. Complt. at 15 ¶¶ 42-45, 17 ¶¶ 57-58, 26 ¶ 104, 27 ¶105, Page.ID 434, 436, 445-46.] The allegations against the nurses provided no details about what treatment Plaintiff sought, when and how he requested it, or who denied it. [Id. at 26 ¶ 104 ¶ Page.ID 445.] Plaintiff's allegations against the mental health care workers state only that they failed to call him out to speak to them after he requested mental health care. [Id.]

         In his amended complaint, Plaintiff made no allegations about being denied medical care at any MDOC facility other than Baraga ...


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.