Annabel v. Mich. Dep't of Corr.

• Decision Date: 21 August 2014
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:14-cv-756
• Citation: Annabel v. Mich. Dep't of Corr., Case No. 1:14-cv-756 (W.D. Mich. Aug 21, 2014)
• Parties: ROBERT WAYNE ANNABEL, Plaintiff, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

ROBERT WAYNE ANNABEL, Plaintiff, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al., Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-756

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

August 21, 2014

Honorable Paul L. Maloney

OPINION

This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., the Rehabilitation Act (RA), 29 U.S.C. § 794, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1964. The Court has granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis.¹ Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, PUB. L. NO. 104-134, 110 STAT. 1321 (1996), 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'sallegations 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 against Defendants Michigan Department of Corrections, Heyns, Campbell, Smith, Huss, Norwood, Zwiker, and Nichols. The Court will serve the complaint against Defendants Yee, Gerlach, and Apol.

Discussion

I. Factual allegations

Plaintiff Robert Wayne Annabel presently is incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) at the Ionia Correctional Facility (ICF), though some of his claims arose while he was housed at the Gus Harrison Correctional Facility (ARF). He sues the MDOC and its Director, Daniel Heyns, together with the following employees at ARF and ICF: ARF Deputy Warden Sherman Campbell; ARF Assistant Resident Unit Supervisor Ronald Nichols; ICF Warden Willie O. Smith; ICF Deputy Wardens Erica Huss and Nanette Norwood; ICF Sergeant (unknown) Zwiker; ICF Social Worker James Apol; ICF Psychiatrist (unknown) Yee; and ICF Doctor (unknown) Gerlach.

Plaintiff's complaint broadly alleges a sweeping conspiracy among MDOC employees at multiple facilities over many years. Plaintiff references his extensive litigation history between 2009 and the present. See Annabel v. Heyns et al., No. 2:12-cv-13590 (E.D. Mich.); Annabel v. Eaton et al., No. 4:14-cv-11429 (E.D. Mich.); Annabel v. Heyns et al., No. 2:14-cv-11337 (E.D. Mich.); Annabel v. Frost et al., No. 2:14-cv-10244 (E.D. Mich.); Annabel v. Armstrong et al., No. 1:09-cv-796 (W.D. Mich.); Annabel v. Caruso et al., No. 1:09-cv-176 (W.D. Mich.); Annabel v. Gendernalik et al., No. 1:08-cv-15328 (E.D. Mich.); Annabel v. Shertz et al., No. 2:07-cv-30 (W.D.Mich.); Annabel v. Eyke et al., No. 2:05-cv-209 (W.D. Mich.). The majority of Plaintiff's allegations serve as mere background for the present complaint and as the basis for other complaints; the Court therefore will not recite those facts in detail. Additional allegations in the complaint concern the suicides of two prisoners who had been housed near Plaintiff and whom Plaintiff had assisted with litigation; the Court will not fully describe the alleged harassment of those prisoners. Instead, the Court will discuss only those allegations that apply to Plaintiff's current complaint and to the Defendants in this action.

Plaintiff alleges that all Defendants retaliated against him for filing his many grievances and lawsuits. According to the complaint,

On April 30, 2014 three extreme occurrences coincidently took place while Plaintiff was at the Gus Harrison Correctional Facility, in Unit 4: (1) Annabel, II v. Heyns, et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-13590 was dismissed; (2) Prisoner Abkedya Boyd #702008 committed a successful "suicide"; and (3) Sherman Campbell transferred the only Unit 4 prionser unit representative, Nolan #603761, to Unit 5 consistent with Cambell's intent to have removed Plaintiff from that same position in Annabel, II v. Frost, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-10244.

(Compl. ¶ 21, docket #1, Page ID#9 (verbatim).) Plaintiff contends that he had been assisting Boyd with a grievance appeal, and that Defendant Heyns must have identified Plaintiff has a proficient litigator. On May 1, 2014, when Plaintiff left his unit to go to lunch, an unknown tall officer mocked Plaintiff about assisting other prisoners to prepare affidavits.

On May 13, 2014, Plaintiff told his RTP primary therapist, Mr. Dixon, that Plaintiff was requesting discharge from RTP to avoid further retaliation by ARF administrative employees, including Defendants Campbell and Nichols and two individuals not named in this action, James Eaton and Christine Hemry. That same day, after Plaintiff had expressed his desire to leave the RTP program at ARF (a Level IV facility), Plaintiff was transferred to an outpatient treatment program(OTP) at ICF (a Level V facility). The transfer form was signed by Defendant Campbell, and Plaintiff assumes that Defendant Nichols helped Campbell prepare the forms. Plaintiff alleges that he has since received a copy of the May 5, 2014, security classification screening form prepared by Nichols, which Plaintiff claims inaccurately counted a Class I misconduct ticket that had been dismissed. Plaintiff nevertheless acknowledges that his classification security screenings routinely have qualified him for Level V placement, though he sometimes has been placed in Level IV facilities, notwithstanding the scoring. He contends that he can be managed without Level V confinement.

When he was transferred to ICF, ARF officials attached a "stun cuff" to his left ankle. (Id. ¶ 33, Page ID#13.) The cuff was removed when Plaintiff was turned over to transport officers at St. Louis, Michigan, who thereafter drove the bus to ICF. Plaintiff complains that, if deployed, the cuff would have transmitted 80,000 volts, and he contends that use of the cuff was unnecessary.

Plaintiff claims that he experienced staff abuse at ICF in 2008 and briefly in 2011. As the result of these past abuses, Plaintiff claims to fear for his safety at ICF. Plaintiff also asserts that, because he filed lawsuits about those earlier abuses, the 2014 transfer was undoubtedly retaliatory. In addition, because of the incidents in 2008, Plaintiff initially refused both his food and medication at ICF, until roughly May 20, 2014, because he feared that unknown officials would contaminate both.

On May 16, 2014, shortly after his arrival at ICF, Plaintiff was interviewed by OPT social worker Apol. Plaintiff complains that Defendant Apol was hostile and critical of Plaintiff and made insulting statements about Plaintiff. Apol showed Plaintiff his nametag and told Plaintiff tospell his name correctly if he sued him. Defendant Apol warned Plaintiff that, if he continued to refuse his psychotropic medications, Apol would initiate forced medication proceedings.

On May 20, 2014, Plaintiff was interviewed by Defendant psychiatrist Dr. Yee. Plaintiff claims that Yee believes that bipolar diagnoses are best treated by a holistic approach, rather than standard psychotropic medication. Defendant Yee implied that Plaintiff's hunger strike was an attempt to obtain a transfer, and he expressed no concern about Plaintiff's weight, as he would not be underweight until he reached 130 pounds. Plaintiff agreed that he would start accepting both food and medication.

On May 24, 2014, after Plaintiff had resumed his meals and medication, both his psychotropic medication and his iron supplement were discontinued. Defendant Yee apparently discontinued the psychotropic medication, and Defendant Gerlach reportedly discontinued the iron supplement. Plaintiff alleges that the iron supplement is essential to treat his hereditary microcytic hypochromic anemia; without the supplements, Plaintiff could require a transfusion.

Plaintiff attended an OPT meeting conducted by Defendant Apol on May 27, 2014. Also present at the meeting were an unknown female professional and a male doctor (possibly Dr. Eric Lanes). Defendant Apol reviewed two medical kites filed by Plaintiff about the discontinuation of his medications. Defendant Apol told Plaintiff that the medications would not be resumed until Plaintiff seriously injured himself. Apol continued, saying that Plaintiff would not be transferred from ICF, even if he did injure himself. The male doctor advised Defendant Apol that he remembered Plaintiff from before, and he recommended resuming the medications because Plaintiff seemed much improved. Apol refused to resume the medications. Plaintiff contends that he has a liberty interest in his mental health and a property interest in his necessary medications.

Plaintiff next complains that, since 2005, he has invested thousands of dollars in legal books and materials, in order to develop a business as a paralegal. He complains that the mental instability and lethargy caused by the termination of his medications is diminishing his capacity to function as a litigator and fully enjoy the property interests of his books and documents. He also alleges that he is severely depressed, paranoid, and fatigued, and he entertains homicidal and suicidal thoughts. According to Plaintiff, Defendants are well aware that, when he is not adequately medicated, he is likely to act violently and commit felonies. Plaintiff insists that Defendants intend to cause so much psychological stress to Plaintiff that he, like prisoner Boyd, commits suicide.

In his next set of allegations, Plaintiff complains that unnamed Defendants interfered with his legal mail between March 24, 2014, and April 10, 2014. As a result, Plaintiff did not receive a copy of a report and recommendation issued in Annabel v. Heyns et al., No 2:12-cv-13590 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 24, 2014). Because Plaintiff failed to file...