Davis v. Washington

• Decision Date: 23 March 2022
• Docket Number: 2:21-cv-129
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
• Parties: CHRIS DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. HEIDI WASHINGTON et al., Defendants.

CHRIS DAVIS, Plaintiff,
v.
HEIDI WASHINGTON et al., Defendants.

No. 2:21-cv-129

United States District Court, W.D. Michigan

March 23, 2022

Honorable Paul L. Maloney

OPINION

Maarten Vermaat, United States Magistrate Judge

This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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. 8.)

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

1

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) (“Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the district court screened the complaint and dismissed it without prejudice before service was made upon any of the defendants . . . [such that] . . . only [the plaintiff] [wa]s a party to this appeal.”).

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) (“The record does not contain a

2

consent from the defendants[; h]owever, because they had not been served, they were not parties to the action at the time the magistrate entered judgment.”)^[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 Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs complaint for failure to state a claim.

Discussion

I. Factual allegations

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 occurred at that facility. Plaintiff sues MDOC Director Heidi Washington, KCF Warden Mike Brown, the MDOC, and the State of Michigan. Plaintiff indicates he is suing the individual Defendants in their official capacities. (Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.9)

3

(“Heidi Washington . . . is being sued in her official capacity . . . . Mike Brown . . . is being sued in his official capacity . . . .”).

Plaintiff alleges generally that the Defendants have failed to mitigate the risks of COVID-19 transmission at KCF. He reports that “nine . . . highly contagious prisoners originally housed at Marquette Branch Prison (MBP), who had tested positive for COVID-19, were anonymously, intentionally and deliberately transferred into the KCF population to contaminate the majority of the KCF population . . . .” (Id, PageID.10.) Plaintiff does not indicate who was responsible for the transfer.

Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants disregarded CDC recommendations because the KCF school principal, who was showing symptoms of COVID-19 and was known to be positive for the deadly virus, was let into the facility. Other persons likewise let several officers and other staff into the facility without testing them. Plaintiff complains that it is impossible to socially distance at KCF. Plaintiff notes that he contracted the virus during November of 2020.

Plaintiff identified several other parties as plaintiffs; however, Plaintiff Davis was the only person to sign the complaint and, thus, the only person the Court recognizes as a party plaintiff to this action. Plaintiff purports to bring this action on behalf of a class of prisoners who experience lingering side-effects that impede their ability to carry out normal day-to-day tasks. Plaintiff also identifies a subclass of prisoners who are over the age of 45 and medically vulnerable.

Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and treble damages. Plaintiff also seeks class certification, a temporary restraining order, and the appointment of counsel.

II. Release as a remedy

Plaintiff seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Plaintiffs request for relief is not a typical habeas petition. The Supreme Court has made clear that constitutional

4

challenges to the fact or duration of confinement are the proper subject of a habeas corpus petition rather than a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499 (1973). Constitutional challenges to the conditions of confinement, on the other hand, are proper subjects for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. The Preiser Court, however, did not foreclose the possibility that habeas relief might be available even for conditions of confinement claims:

This is not to say that habeas corpus may not also be available to challenge such prison conditions. See Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, (1969); Wilwording v. Swenson, supra, at 251 of 404 U.S. . . . When a prisoner is put under additional and unconstitutional restraints during his lawful custody, it is arguable that habeas corpus will lie to remove the restraints making the custody illegal. See Note, Developments in the Law-Habeas Corpus, 83 Harv. L. Rev. 1038, 1084 (1970).[]

\Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499 (footnote omitted).

But, the Court has also never upheld a “conditions of confinement” habeas claim. Indeed, in Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749 (2004), the Court acknowledged that it had “never followed the speculation in Preiser . . . that such a prisoner subject to ‘additional and unconstitutional restraints' might have a habeas claim independent of § 1983 . . . .” Id. at 751 n.1.

The Sixth Circuit has concluded that claims regarding conditions of confinement are properly brought under § 1983 and are not cognizable on habeas review. See Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 714 (6th Cir. 2004) (“Petitioner in this case appears to be asserting the violation of a right secured by the federal Constitution or laws by state prison officials. Such a claim is properly brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”); In re Owens, 525 Fed.Appx. 287, 290 (6th Cir. 2013) (“The criteria to which Owens refers involves the conditions of his confinement . . . . This is not the proper execution of sentence claim that may be pursued in a § 2254 petition.”); Hodges v. Bell, 170 Fed.Appx. 389, 392-93 (6th Cir. 2006) (“Hodges's complaints about the conditions of his confinement . . . are a proper subject for a § 1983 action, but fall outside of the cognizable core of habeas corpus relief.”); Young v. Martin, 83 Fed.Appx. 107, 109 (6th Cir. 2003) (“It is clear under

5

current law that a prisoner complaining about the conditions of his confinement should bring suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”).

Plaintiff's claims regarding the constitutionality of his custody because of risks posed by COVID-19 are principally claims regarding the conditions of his confinement. Such claims should be raised by a complaint for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Nonetheless, Plaintiff's request for relief seeks release from custody. That relief is available only upon habeas corpus review. “The Supreme Court has held that release from confinement-the remedy petitioner[] seek[s] here-is ‘the heart of habeas corpus.'” Wilson v. Williams, 961 F.3d 829, 838 (6th Cir. 2020), (quoting Preiser, 411 U.S. at 498).^[2] A challenge to the fact or duration of confinement should be brought as a petition for habeas corpus and is not the proper subject of a civil rights action brought pursuant to § 1983. See...