Clark v. People of State of Mich., Civ. A. No. 79-72522.
| Decision Date | 17 October 1980 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 79-72522. |
| Citation | 498 F. Supp. 159 |
| Parties | Al E. CLARK, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE of the STATE of MICHIGAN, Michigan Department of Corrections, and Charles E. Anderson, Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Al E. Clark, in pro. per.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen. by Keith D. Roberts, Asst. Atty. Gen., Corrections Div., Lansing, Mich., for respondents.
Plaintiff complains under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that he was denied constitutional rights while confined at the State Prison for Southern Michigan. Specifically, he alleges that he is being treated for the ingestion of wood alcohol. He became ill as the result of drinking duplicating machine fluid obtained from an unknown source at the prison. Plaintiff claims that the defendants did not have the wood alcohol secured away from the prisoners, and that he became ill from drinking wood alcohol. He seeks substantial money damages.
There is no claim on plaintiff's part that any of the named defendants were in any way responsible for his ingestion of wood alcohol. In fact, he has failed to show how any of the named defendants directly caused his injury. Before plaintiff can recover under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he must allege and prove that defendants have deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, and must show that the defendants deprived him of constitutional rights "under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any state or territory." See Adickes v. Kress & Company, 398 U.S. 144, 150, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 1604, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1969).
Plaintiff has pointed to no specific constitutional guarantee safeguarding the interest he asserts has been invaded. In Gittlemacher v. Prasse, 428 F.2d 1, 6 (CA3 1970), the Court said:
A state may not properly be made a defendant in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Monell v. The Department of Social Services for the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Further, state agencies are not "persons" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and thus are not subject to suit under that statute. Thompson v. Burke, 556 F.2d 231 (3d Cir. 1977); Bricker v. Michigan Parole Board, 405 F.Supp. 1340 (E.D.Mich.1975).
As to Warden Anderson, the plaintiff must allege and show "more than mere authority by the defendant over others who have violated plaintiff's right." Veres v. The County of Monroe, 364 F.Supp. 1327, 1331 (E.D...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lowery v. Department of Corrections
...323 (1978), cited in DeVargas v. State ex rel New Mexico Dep't of Corrections, 97 N.M. 447, 640 P.2d 1327 (1981); Clark v. Michigan, 498 F.Supp. 159 (E.D.Mich.1980). In Quern, supra, the Court held that in enacting Sec. 1983 Congress did not intend to abrogate the sovereign immunity of the ......
-
Vermett v. Hough
...at 1146; Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1137 (CA 5 1982), modified on other grounds, 688 F.2d 266 (CA 5 1982); Clark v. Michigan, 498 F.Supp. 159, 161 (E.D.Mich.1980). As to the remaining Defendants and their argument that liability cannot be imposed upon a respondeat superior theory, I be......
-
Gumbhir v. Kansas State Bd. of Pharmacy
...its agencies are not "persons." See Florida Businessmen, Etc. v. State of Fla., 499 F.Supp. 346 (N.D.Fla.1980); Clark v. People of State of Mich., 498 F.Supp. 159 (E.D.Mich.1980). Others have merely denied suit, holding the Monell decision did nothing to abrogate the states' traditional imm......
-
Garcia v. State, 1
...are not "persons" under § 1983 based on the fact that Monell restricted its holding to municipalities. See, e.g., Clark v. Michigan, 498 F.Supp. 159, 161 (E.D.Mich.1980). The Supreme Court's decision in Quern, handed down the year after Monell, added more fuel to the already flaming debate ......