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.

Jenkins v. Access Securepak Co.

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

December 20, 2019

VAN JENKINS, Plaintiff,
v.
ACCESS SECUREPAK, CO., et al., Defendants.

          ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO VACATE OR RECONSIDER (ECF NO. 16) AND (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (ECF NO. 19)

          MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff Van Jenkins is an inmate at the Parnall Correctional Facility. Jenkins alleges that he was deprived of his property without due process of law when a package that was delivered to him was returned to the sender without first giving Jenkins notice or an opportunity to be heard. (See Compl., ECF No. 2, PageID.24.) On September 12, 2019, the Court dismissed Jenkins's complaint without prejudice and granted Jenkins leave to amend his complaint by November 12, 2019. (See Order Dismissing Pl.'s Compl., ECF No. 14.)

         Jenkins has filed a motion to vacate or reconsider the Court's order. (See Mo t . to Vacate or Reconsider, ECF No. 16.) Jenkins also filed a motion for a time extension to amend his complaint. (See Mot. for Time Extension, ECF No. 19.) For the reasons explained below, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART Jenkins's motion to vacate or reconsider the Court's order to dismiss Jenkins's complaint (ECF No. 16), and the Court GRANTS Jenkins's motion for a time extension (ECF No. 19).

         I

         Jenkins filed this action on January 29, 2019. (See Transfer Order, ECF No. 3, PageID.66.) Jenkins's Complaint appears to name four Defendants: (1) Pam Mueller, Manager for Access Securepak Company, (2) Access Securepak Company (“Securepak”), (3) the Michigan Department of Corrections (“MDOC”), and (4) Melody A.P. Wallace, Litigation Coordinator for the Michigan Department of Corrections. (See Compl., ECF No. 2.)

         On March 21, 2019, the Court ordered Jenkins to show cause why the Complaint should not be summarily dismissed. (Show Cause Order, ECF No. 6.) The Show Cause Order identified two apparent flaws in Jenkins's claim. First, the Court noted that Jenkins failed to allege that Defendants Mueller and Securepak were involved in the alleged deprivation of his constitutional rights. (Id. at PageID.75.) Accordingly, the Court directed Jenkins to show cause why Muell e r and Securepak “should not be dismissed for [Jenkins's] failure to allege that they were actively engaged in unconstitutional conduct.” (Id.) Second, the Court noted that Jenkins did not allege that the MDOC failed to provide Jenkins with an adequate post-deprivation remedy. The Court explained that such an allegation may be required by the Supreme Court's decision in Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981), overruled in part by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986), and by Sixth Circuit decisions interpreting Parratt. (See Id. at PageID.75-76.) The Court therefore ordered Jenkins to show cause why his Complaint should not be dismissed for failing to satisfy the Parratt doctrine. (See id.)

         After the Court issued its Show Cause Order, Jenkins submitted several unresponsive filings. (See ECF Nos. 9-13.) On September 12, 2019, the Court dismissed Jenkins's complaint without prejudice. (See Order Dismissing Pl.'s Compl., ECF No. 14.)

         The Court identified three reasons why it was dismissing Jenkins's complaint. First, the Court concluded that the Eleventh Amendment barred Jenkins's suit against the MDOC. (See Id. at PageID.217.) Second, Jenkins failed to respond to the Show Cause Order by demonstrating or contending that Mueller and Securepak “were actively engaged in unconstitutional conduct.” (Id.) Third, although not mentioned in the Show Cause Order, the Court concluded that Jenkins failed to sufficiently allege that Defendant “Wallace participated in the allegedly unconstitutional conduct - i.e., the return of the package to Securepak without due process.” (Id. at PageID.217-18.)

         Although the Court dismissed Jenkins's complaint, it also granted Jenkins leave to file an amended complaint. The Court emphasized that Jenkins should amend his complaint to specifically identify wh o was directly involved in the incident and how the individuals violated his rights:

In the Amended Complaint, Jenkins should take care to name as defendants those individuals who were directly involved in the alleged return of his package to Securepak and/or who were directly involved in any other alleged violation of his constitutional rights. Moreover, Jenkins should allege specific facts in his Amended Complaint showing how each person he chooses to name as a defendant was personally involved in the return of his package and/or otherwise violated his constitutional rights.

(Id. at PageID.218-19; emphasis in original.)

         The Court also addressed Jenkins's frustration, which he had expressed in his prior filings, that he could not obtain evidence or documents supporting his claims while in prison. The Court noted that, at this stage in his case, Jenkins did not need such records to state a plausible claim for relief:

Jenkins claims that “Defendants have refused to disclose[] relevant records involving the [Securepak] store items order.” (First Mot. for Relief from Summ. J., ECF No. 10, PageID.150.) But Jenkins need not present such records to the Court at this stage. Rather, Jenkins' Amended Complaint need only allege sufficient factual matter that, if accepted as true, states a plausible claim to relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The Court again wishes to emphasize to Jenkins that his task at this stage is to present specific factual allegations - based upon his personal knowledge and/or upon information and belief - showing how each defendant violated his ...

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.