Cromer v. Schuette
| Decision Date | 03 April 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:12-cv-94 |
| Parties | EDWARD JAMES CROMER, Plaintiff, v. BILL SCHUETTE et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Honorable R. Allan Edgar
This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1986, 28 U.S.C. § 1343 and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201. The Court has granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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'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 against Defendants Schuette, Morrow, Curley and Masters and Plaintiff's conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1986 for failure to state a claim. The Court will serve the complaint against Defendants Hill, Jennings, Vinning, Castello, Bowerman, Fielding and Dube.
Plaintiff presently is incarcerated at the Baraga Maximum Correctional Facility but complains of events that occurred at the Alger Correctional Facility (LMF). In his pro se complaint, he sues Attorney General Bill Schuette, Wayne County Circuit Judge Bruce Morrow, LMF Warden Michael Curley, and LMF Correction Officers Kim Hill, Unknown Jennings, Unknown Vinning, Keith Castello, B. Bowerman, Unknown Fielding, Unknown Masters and D. Dube.
Plaintiff complains that Defendants violated his rights under the First, Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments in a variety of ways. On July 8, 2009, Plaintiff was moved from administrative segregation to a temporary unit because of housing changes at LMF. In the afternoon, Defendant Bowerman stopped at Plaintiff's cell and said "you don't want to be over here, how did you get over here[?]" (Compl., docket #1, Page ID#12.) Ten minutes later, Defendant Hill approached Plaintiff's cell. Hill told Plaintiff "remember what I said, I told you [not to] come to my unit." (Id.) Plaintiff suggests that Hill was angry with Plaintiff for writing grievances and complaints against Hill.
Later that afternoon, Plaintiff was escorted by Officers Jennings and Vinning to the prison showers. Plaintiff complains that Officer Vinning was jogging in complete disregard to Plaintiff's medical condition. Plaintiff suffers from foot-drop. When Plaintiff asked him to slow down, Vinning said "[y]ou won't tell us how to run our unit." (Compl., docket #1, Page ID#13.) On the way to the showers, Plaintiff noticed Officer Hill talking to Officer Castello.
After his shower, Officers Jennings and Hill escorted Plaintiff back to his cell. At some point, Jennings and Hill stopped and punched Plaintiff in the back of his head and on the sideof his face. Jennings also placed Plaintiff's head in a head-lock and slammed Plaintiff's head into a concrete wall. As a result, Plaintiff's head began to bleed and he fell to the ground. Plaintiff was then kicked by Officers Vinning, Hill and Castello. Plaintiff blacked out. When he came to, Officer Hill was holding onto Plaintiff's neck with his knee. Officer Jennings had Plaintiff's face on the floor and Officers Castello and Vinning were standing on Plaintiff's legs. Plaintiff was eventually carried to his cell.
Nurse Maki, who is not listed as a Defendant, evaluated Plaintiff. In her summary, she stated that Plaintiff had a skin tear to his left great toe with a small amount of bleeding, one dime-sized abrasion on his right knee, superficial scratches on the right side of his head and mild swelling/contusion on the right side of his forehead. (July 8, 2009 MDOC SOAP Note Summary, Ex. 2, docket #1-2, Page ID#23.) Because of the assault, Plaintiff claims that his face swelled, he experienced headaches for approximately two weeks as well as psychological trauma.
After the incident, Plaintiff received a misconduct ticket for attempting to spit on Officers Hill and Vinning. Plaintiff claims that Officers Hill and Vinning fabricated the misconduct charge. The hearing officer ultimately found Plaintiff guilty of the misconduct and sentenced him to thirty days' loss of privileges.
Plaintiff states that when he complains about prison conditions, Defendants Hill, Jennings and Vinning have retaliated by taking his food trays, writing bogus misconduct tickets and taking away his yard time.
On October 18, 2010, Plaintiff reported chest pains to Nurse Solek, who is not listed as a Defendant, during medication rounds. Twenty minutes later, Plaintiff could not breathe and informed Officer Fielding of his medical problems. Fielding told Plaintiff he was tired of inmatescomplaining about illnesses. Plaintiff yelled and Nurse Solek came back to his cell. Officers Eiseman and Fielding then escorted Plaintiff to the triage room. While Plaintiff's vital signs were being checked, he heard Officer Fielding say to Eiseman, "let me go shake down [Plaintiff's] cell and find some food, he seems to need some foodloaf." (Compl., docket #1, Page ID#16.) Fifteen minutes later, Eiseman returned. When Plaintiff returned to his cell, he found that his family pictures had been removed from his cell.
Plaintiff next complains that Defendant Dube implemented his own rules over the law library, contrary to Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) policies and procedures. First, Plaintiff complains that Defendant Dube performed aggressive searches by grabbing Plaintiff's penis and/or his genitals prior to entering the law library. When a prisoner resists, Dube sends him to administrative segregation. Second, Plaintiff complains that the law library has only limited resources. Third, Plaintiff argues that he cannot pass along law library materials for fear of receiving a misconduct report. Fourth, Plaintiff complains that he cannot talk and is subject to mouth searches while at the library. Finally, Plaintiff argues that he cannot take law materials to the yard. Plaintiff argues that Warden Curley has continued to acquiesce to and enforce Dube's rules. Many times, Curley will tell Plaintiff that the law library only carries one volume of a book but the volume is in administrative segregation. Plaintiff argues that Defendants Masters and Dube failed to provide the necessary law materials for the law library for access to the court.
Finally, Plaintiff complains that Defendants Attorney General Schuette and Judge Morrow subjected Plaintiff to a bill of attainder. Plaintiff argues that he did not commit a crime in Case No. 90-2718 and that Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.317 is unconstitutionally vague.
Plaintiff summarizes his claims as follows: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Hill, Vinning, Bowerman, Jennings and Castello physically assaulted him in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights, Defendant Dube retaliated against Plaintiff by seizing Plaintiff's legal materials from the law library, Defendant Fielding retaliated against Plaintiff by illegally seizing Plaintiff's family pictures, Defendants Dube and Masters failed to provide adequate access to the courts contrary to the First Amendment, and Defendant Curley wrongly authorized Officer Dube to restrict legal materials contrary to the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court also construes the following claims from Plaintiff's complaint: Officers Hill and Vinning wrongly fabricated a misconduct report in violation of Plaintiff's due process rights; Officer Fielding failed to respond to Plaintiff's chest pains; and Defendant Dube sexually abused Plaintiff in violation of Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights.
Plaintiff requests injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendants Schuette and Morrow and monetary damages from the remaining Defendants.
A 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, 45-46 (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, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (). 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 hasfacial 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, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. 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, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (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, 129 S. Ct. at 1950 (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2)); see also Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010) ().
Plainti...
To continue reading
Request your trial