United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
L. Maloney, United States District Judge.
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 complaint for failure to state a claim.
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 and the Marquette Branch
Prison (MBP) in Marquette, Marquette County, Michigan, the
Muskegon Correctional Facility (MCF) in Muskegon, Muskegon
County, Michigan, and the Carson City Correctional Facility
(DRF) in Carson City, Montcalm County, Michigan.
sues Case Manager K. Martin, Psychiatrist Esmaeil Emami,
Psychologist Mark Fox, mental health professional Meghan
McGillis, Psychologist J. Guastella, Psychiatrist Richard
Myers, Psychiatrist Unknown Meaden, Psychologist Unknown
Harris, Unknown Parties employed by Corrections Mental
Health, and Mental Health Supervisor Unknown Maranka.
alleges that in 2014, while he was confined at DRF, he was
placed on Effexor. Plaintiff states that he has bipolar
disorder and that being on Effexor caused him to become stuck
in a manic state for five years, until he was finally removed
from the Effexor in July of 2019. Plaintiff states that while
in a manic state, he is extremely aggressive, violent,
impulsive, and volatile. Plaintiff suffers from psychotic
episodes when he is stressed and aggravated. Plaintiff
further states that for the last three years that he was
taking Effexor, he was on a dose that exceeded the maximum
contends that because of the medication he was taking, he
received numerous misconduct tickets. Plaintiff states that
every time he had a hearing, the mental health supervisor at
each prison failed to advocate for him and denied that
Plaintiff's mental health had anything to do with his
behavior. Plaintiff asserts that the Effexor immediately
caused a radical change in his behavior and that the failure
to remove him from the drug resulted in him receiving between
70 and 80 misconduct tickets between 2014 and 2019. In
addition, Plaintiff has been labeled a behavior problem.
Finally, Plaintiff states that while on Effexor, he did not
have an appetite and lost a significant amount of weight,
with his weight dropping to as low as 138 pounds.
states that Defendants violated his rights under the Eighth
and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiff seeks to have his
misconduct record cleared of all tickets he received while on
Effexor, $100 a day for the time he was on loss of privileges
or in segregation, $250, 000 in damages for pain and
suffering, and an extra tray for each meal to compensate for
his lack of appetite while on Effexor.
Failure to state a claim
complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it
fails “‘to give the defendant fair notice of what
the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.'” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). While a complaint need not contain
detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's allegations
must include more than labels and conclusions.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“Threadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”). The
court must determine whether the complaint contains
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at
570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 679. Although the plausibility standard is not equivalent
to a “‘probability requirement,' . . . it
asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has
acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “[W]here
the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more
than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has
alleged-but it has not ‘show[n]'-that the pleader
is entitled to relief.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679
(quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)); see also Hill v.
Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010) (holding
that the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard applies
to dismissals of prisoner cases on initial review under 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)).
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege the violation of a right secured by the federal
Constitution or laws and must show that the deprivation was
committed by a person acting under color of state law.
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Street
v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 102 F.3d 810, 814 (6th Cir.
1996). Because § 1983 is a method for vindicating
federal rights, not a source of substantive rights itself,
the first step in an action under § 1983 is to identify
the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed.
Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994).
states that Defendants violated his rights under the Eighth
Amendment. The Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of
cruel and unusual punishment against those convicted of
crimes. U.S. Const. amend. VIII. The Eighth Amendment
obligates prison authorities to provide medical care to
incarcerated individuals, as a failure to provide such care
would be inconsistent with contemporary standards of decency.
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 102, 103-04 (1976). This
includes medically necessary mental health treatment.
Id. at 103; Government of the Virgin Islands v.
Martinez, 239 F.3d 293, 301 (3d Cir. 2001); Lay v.
Norris, No. 88-5757, 1989 WL 62498, at *4 (6th Cir. June
13, 1989); Potter v. Davis, No. 82-5783, 1985 WL
13129, at * 2 (6th Cir. April 26, ...