Carter v. Lutjens
| Decision Date | 10 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2:21-cv-203 |
| Parties | VINCENT JOE CARTER, Plaintiff, v. CHRISTOPHER LUTJENS 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 previously sought and was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No 6.) 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. 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 §§ 1915(e)(2) and 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 Litig. 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 defendants 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 Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (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 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. §§ 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 against Defendants Scott, Carlson, Smoyer, Unknown Parties, and Washington. The Court will also dismiss, for failure to state a claim, the following claims against the remaining Defendants: (1) Plaintiff's claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985; (2) Plaintiff's claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1986; (3) Plaintiff's First Amendment and RLUIPA claims against Defendants Lutjens, Feliciano, Wellman, Tasson, Dahl, McCarthy, and Huss; (4) Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Lutjens, Feliciano, Tasson, Dahl, McCarthy, and Huss; and (5) Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Heinritz.
The following claims remain in the case: (1) Plaintiff's First Amendment free exercise claims against Defendant Heinritz in her personal and official capacities; (2) Plaintiff's RLUIPA claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendant Heinritz in her official capacity; (3) Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Wellman and Heinritz; and (4) Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Lutjens, Feliciano, Tasson, Dahl, McCarthy, and Huss.
Plaintiff is presently incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) at the Kinross Correctional Facility (KCF) in Kincheloe, Chippewa County, Michigan. The events about which he complains, however, occurred at the Marquette Branch Prison (MBP) in Marquette, Marquette County, Michigan. Plaintiff sues MDOC Director Heidi Washington, Correctional Facilities Administration Transfer Coordinator Laura Heinritz, MDOC Bureau of Health Care Services Nurse S. Smoyer, and the following individuals at MBP: Warden Erica Huss, Assistant Deputy Wardens Unknown Tasson and Unknown Dahl, Business Manager Unknown McCarthy, Food Service Director Christopher Lutjens, Assistant Food Service Director J. Feliciano, Registered Dietician Kelly Wellman, Health Unit Manager C. Scott, Registered Nurse Unknown Carlson, and Unknown Parties.
Plaintiff alleges that he was transferred to MBP for outpatient treatment on July 1, 2020. (ECF No. 1, PageID.7.) At the time, Plaintiff was on the “Buddhist Religious ‘Strict Vegan Diet' meal program.” (Id.) Plaintiff maintains that MBP did not provide or was not equipped to provide religious “strict vegan diet” meals. (Id.) Plaintiff does not explain how the food provided by MBP failed to comply with his religious strict vegan diet.
Plaintiff alleges that from July 1, 2020, until July 10, 2020, he was forced to choose between an inadequate diet and adherence to his religion because: (1) MBP did not provide “strict vegan diet” meals and (2) the food was served in inadequate portions. (Id.) During that time, Plaintiff ate a piece of fruit and juice each day for more than a week, causing him to suffer “severe hunger pains all day and all night.” (Id.) Moreover, his inability to eat affected his mental illness and antidepressant medication. (Id.) Plaintiff began hallucinating and was placed on 72-hour observation/suicide watch from July 4, 2020, through July 8, 2020. (Id.)
Plaintiff contends that his meals “must be prepared a certain way to prevent cross contamination with other foods that are considered ‘haram' (harmful).” (Id.) He contends that Defendants Huss, Dahl, Wellman, Lutjens, Feliciano, and McCarthy “refused to provide Plaintiff with his religious diet or provide him with a special diet consistent with his religious beliefs, enough to sustain normal health.” (Id.) On July 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed a grievance against Defendants Wellman and Tasson, as well as Olsen, Sergeant Methorny, PC Johnson, and Psychiatrist Mende Green (not parties), for deliberate indifference to his medical and psychiatric needs and for violating his “rights to practice his sincerely held religious beliefs.” (Id.) On July 18, 2020, Plaintiff filed another grievance against Defendants Wellman, Lutjens, and Feliciano “for conspiring to alter and falsify documents, in particular [his] religious vegan meal tickets.” (Id.) According to Plaintiff, he was receiving foods that were not on the Buddhist “strict vegan diet” and, therefore, were haram. (Id.) From July 10, 2020, through July 24, 2020, Defendant Wellman provided Plaintiff vegan meals from the general population chow line “in order to try and accommodate Plaintiff's strict religious vegan meals.” (Id., PageID.8.)
On July 24, 2020, Plaintiff was transferred to the Chippewa Correctional Facility in Kincheloe, Chippewa County, Michigan, “so that his religious diet could be accommodated.” (Id.)
He alleges, however, that on September 14, 2020, Defendant Heinritz or her successor approved Plaintiff's transfer back to MBP despite MBP's inability to accommodate his religious diet. (Id.) After he was sent back to MBP he “notified all named Defendants and Defendant Wellman told Plaintiff that she ha[d] no authority to modify or change his religious diet.” (Id.) Plaintiff spoke directly to Defendants Lutjens, Feliciano, McCarthy, Huss, Tasson, and Dahl about the issue while his numerous grievances were pending. (Id.) Those Defendants acknowledged when responding to his grievances that MBP does not provide religious diets. (Id.) They also told Plaintiff that “they would not intervene or order a religious vegan diet tray for him, ” and that they would help him get his religious meals only if he withdrew his pending grievances against them. (Id., PageID.9.) When Plaintiff refused to withdraw his...
To continue reading
Request your trial