Bailey v. Hill
| Docket Number | 2:23-cv-83 |
| Decision Date | 26 May 2023 |
| Parties | DARRICK BAILEY, Plaintiff, v. UNKNOWN HILL, SR. et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff paid the full $402.00 filing fee for this action. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff consented to proceed in all matters in this action under the jurisdiction of a United States magistrate judge. (ECF No. 1 PageID.5.)
This case is presently before the Court for preliminary review under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (PLRA), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). The Court is required to conduct this initial review prior to the service of the complaint. See In re Prison Litigation Reform Act 105 F.3d 1131, 1131, 1134 (6th Cir. 1997); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604-05 (6th Cir. 1997). Service of the complaint on the named defendant(s) is of particular significance in defining a putative defendant's relationship to the proceedings.
“An individual or entity named as a defendant is not obliged to engage in litigation unless notified of the action, and brought under a court's authority, by formal process.” Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 347 (1999). “Service of process, under longstanding tradition in our system of justice, is fundamental to any procedural imposition on a named defendant.” Id. at 350. “[O]ne becomes a party officially, and is required to take action in that capacity, only upon service of a summons or other authority-asserting measure stating the time within which the party served must appear and defend.” Id. (citations omitted). That is, “[u]nless a named defendant agrees to waive service, the summons continues to function as the sine qua non directing an individual or entity to participate in a civil action or forgo procedural or substantive rights.” Id. at 351. Therefore, the PLRA, by requiring courts to review and even resolve a plaintiff's claims before service, creates a circumstance where there may only be one party to the proceeding-the plaintiff-at the district court level and on appeal. See, e.g., Conway v. Fayette Cnty. Gov't, 212 Fed.Appx. 418 (6th Cir. 2007) ().
Here, Plaintiff has consented to a United States magistrate judge conducting all proceedings in this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). That statute provides that “[u]pon the consent of the parties, a full-time United States magistrate judge . . . may conduct any or all proceedings . . . and order the entry of judgment in the case ” 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Because the named Defendants have not yet been served, the undersigned concludes that they are not presently parties whose consent is required to permit the undersigned to conduct a preliminary review under the PLRA, in the same way that they are not parties who will be served with or given notice of this opinion. See Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532 (5th Cir. 1995) ().[1]
Under the 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. § 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 against Defendants Unknown Parties. The Court will also dismiss Plaintiff's federal claims against Defendants Hill, Jr., Brennan, and Fielding for failure to state a claim. The Court will dismiss Plaintiff's state law claims against Defendants Hill, Jr., Brennan, and Fielding without prejudice because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims.
The Court will also dismiss the following claims against the remaining Defendants for failure to state a claim: (1) Plaintiff's official capacity claims; (2) Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Seymour and Boyak premised upon their failure to take disciplinary action against Defendant Hill, Sr.; (3) Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical care claim against Defendant Seymour; and (4) Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claims against Defendants Seymour and Boyak. The following claims remain in the case: (1) Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Seymour and Boyak; (2) Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendant Hill, Sr.; and (3) Plaintiff's state law claims against Defendants Hill, Sr., and Seymour. The Court will also deny Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 2).
Plaintiff is presently incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) at the Alger Correctional Facility (LMF) in Munising, Alger County, Michigan. The events about which he complains occurred at that facility. Plaintiff sues Sergeants Unknown Seymour and Unknown Boyak, as well as Corrections Officers Unknown Hill, Sr., Unknown Hill, Jr., Unknown Brennan, and Unknown Fielding. Plaintiff also sues Unknown Parties, referred to as “all staff involved.” (ECF No. 1, PageID.3.) Plaintiff sues Defendants in both their official and personal capacities.
Plaintiff alleges that during the relevant time, he was assigned to assist a handicapped prisoner by picking up and returning that prisoner's food trays. (Id., PageID.9.) On May 25, 2020, Plaintiff picked up the “detail trays that he needed to deliver.” (Id., PageID.10.) While Plaintiff was giving a tray to inmate Taylor, Defendant Hill, Sr., who was in the control center, shut the cell door on the tray, causing injury to Plaintiff's wrist. (Id.) Plaintiff tried to explain that his job detail involved getting inmate Taylor's food trays for him. (Id.) Defendant Hill, Sr., responded, (Id.) Plaintiff again tried to explain that he was only doing his job. (Id.) Defendant Hill, Sr., threatened to place Plaintiff “in the hole if he did not lock down.” (Id.) Plaintiff submitted grievances about the incident. (Id.)
While Plaintiff was waiting to be interviewed regarding his grievances, he asked numerous correctional officers for medical attention, but his requests were denied. (Id., PageID.11.) Plaintiff alleges that he was in severe pain, but Defendants Hill, Jr., Brennan, and Fielding denied his requests for medical care. (Id.) Plaintiff submitted a healthcare kite on May 29, 2020.[2] (Id.) He alleges that he was denied medical treatment, so he submitted a grievance. (Id.)
On June 3, 2020, Defendant Seymour interviewed Plaintiff regarding his grievance against Defendant Hill, Sr. (Id., PageID.4.) Defendant Seymour told Plaintiff that he would get Plaintiff medical attention that day if Plaintiff signed off on his grievance. (Id., PageID.13.) Plaintiff agreed, and Defendant Seymour called healthcare and spoke to Nurse Crane (not a party). (Id., PageID.3.) Nurse Crane examined Plaintiff's wrist and gave him pain medication. (Id.) Plaintiff was also sent to the Munising Memorial Hospital for X-rays. (Id., PageID.13.) Dr. Todd Bostwick (not a party) noted that Plaintiff's X-rays showed an “ulna positive variance which can predispose to TCFF tears.” (ECF No. 1-2, PageID.40.) When Plaintiff returned to LMF, medical staff gave him a wrist brace “due to the findings of the hospital.” (ECF No. 1, PageID.14.)
On June 5, 2020, Defendant Seymour came to see Plaintiff to check if Plaintiff intended to sign off on his grievances. (Id., PageID.4.) Plaintiff responded that he “[would] not be bribed and he [would] not sign off on the grievance because Defendant Officer Hill Sr. assaulted him and [Defendant Seymour was] covering up” that act. (Id., PageID.14.) Defendant Seymour “got upset and told [Plaintiff] to lock down immediately.” (Id.)
Several days later, on June 11, 2020, Defendant Seymour wrote a class II misconduct ticket, charging Plaintiff with interference with the administration of rules. (ECF No. 1-3, PageID.43.) In support of the charge, Defendant Seymour wrote:
Due to the allegations made against C/O K. Hill in the grievance filed by prisoner Bailey, C/O K. Hill could have been subject to discipline leading up to the dismissal of his job. I received a grievance from prisoner Bailey on 6-3-20 stating that C/O K. Hill maliciously assaulted him while on work assignment, by closing the cell door on his left wrist. Prisoner Bailey made written false accusations resulting in attempting disciplinary action against C/O K. Hill. I reviewed institutional camera and the video clearly shows that when the door was closed that prisoner Bailey's wrist was not closed in the door. Prisoner Bailey['s] allegations against C/O K. Hill were clearly false.
(Id.) Defendant Boyak reviewed the misconduct with Plaintiff that same day. (Id., PageID.44.) Plaintiff alleges...
To continue reading
Request your trial