In re Jackson Lockdown/MCO Cases

• Decision Date: 13 July 1983
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 81-72151.
• Citation: 568 F. Supp. 869
• Parties: In re JACKSON LOCKDOWN/MCO CASES.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

568 F. Supp. 869

In re JACKSON LOCKDOWN/MCOCASES.

Civ. No. 81-72151.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, S.D.

June 28, 1983.

On Motion for Summary Judgment July 13, 1983.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Martin Geer of Kessler & Geer, Ann Arbor, Mich., Neal Bush of Bush, Bennett & Magid, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiffs.

Brian MacKenzie, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State of Michigan, Lansing, Mich., for defendants.

Eileen Nowikowski, of Marston, Sachs, Nunn, Kates, Kadushin & O'Hare, P.C., Detroit, Mich., for defendant Mich. Corrections Organization, and various prison guards sued individually and in their official capacity.

Jane Garrett, of Schureman, Frakes, Glass & Wulfmeier, Detroit, Mich., for defendantsJeffrey Schoendorf and William Schnarrs, prison guards sued individually and in their official capacity.

                         TABLE OF CONTENTS
                  I. The Procedural Background                             872
                     A. Consolidation of Cases                             872
                     B. The Motions to Dismiss                             872
                 II. The Facts as Alleged                                  873
                III. The 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim                       875
                     A. MCO Motion: State Action                           875
                     B. State Motion                                       877
                        1. Personal Involvement                            878
                        2. Constitutionality of Post-Riot Conditions       878
                 IV. The 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) Claim                    878
                     A. Elements of a § 1985(3) Claim                 878
                

       B. Intra-corporate Conspiracy Exception                  879
                       C. Class-based Animus Requirement                        880
                          1. Legislative History                                880
                          2. Sixth Circuit Case Law                             881
                          3. McDonald's Allegations                             883
                   V. The 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) Claim                        885
                  VI. The 42 U.S.C. § 1986 Claim                           886
                 VII. The Pendent State Claims                                  887
                      A. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (MCO)     887
                      B. Breach of Duty Under Employment Contract (MCO)         888
                      C. Negligence (State Defendants)                          888
                VIII. Res Judicata                                              888
                  IX. The Eleventh Amendment                                    889
                   X. Miscellaneous                                             889
                      A. More Definite Statement                                889
                      B. Qualified Immunity                                     889
                  XI. Order                                                     889
                

OPINION AND ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS

COHN, District Judge.

I.THE PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A.Consolidation of Cases

On May 22, 1981 and again on May 25, 1981 the State Prison of Southern Michigan(SPSM) was the subject of prisoner rioting.¹Beginning in June 1981, individual prisoners started filing pro per complaints against the Michigan Corrections Organization (MCO), the labor union for the prison guards, and its president, Gerald Fryt, alleging that MCO instigated the riots by taking over SPSM on the morning of May 22 with the intent of confining its prisoners to their cells indefinitely (a "lockdown") and otherwise violating their constitutional rights.Some of these cases were filed initially in federal court; others were filed in state court and removed by MCO.In some, but not all of the cases the warden of SPSM, Barry Mintzes, and the director of the Michigan Department of Corrections, Perry Johnson, were also named as defendants.

In accordance with a resolution adopted by the judges of the Eastern District of Michigan on February 8, 1982, these various pro per actions were consolidated for pretrial purposes.SeeManual For Complex Litigation§ 5.00 at 160-62 (5th Ed.1982).Counsel were appointed for all the plaintiffs who desired representation and in June 1982 amended complaints containing essentially identical allegations were filed in all but two cases.MCO, Fryt, Mintzes, and Johnson were named as defendants in addition to a number of individual prison guards, most of whom have not been served to date.The two complaints which were not amended were removed from the consolidation and one new case, filed pro per but closely following the standard amended complaint, was added leaving a total of twenty-two cases.SeePre-Trial OrderNo. 4, filed March 11, 1983.Lead counsel were appointed for plaintiffs to file consolidated motions and briefs on behalf of all plaintiffs addressing issues common to all the cases.Pre-Trial OrderNo. 3, filed January 26, 1983;seeManual for Complex Litigation§ 1.92.

B.The Motions to Dismiss

Now before the Court are motions to dismiss the amended complaints, Fed.R. Civ.P. 12(b)(6), filed by MCO and Fryt (collectively "MCO") and by Mintzes and Johnson (collectively "state defendants").The motions attack the sufficiency of every claim raised on a variety of grounds.

For the purposes of these motions, a single complaint, McDonald v. Michigan Corrections Organization,Civil No. 81-40192, will be taken as the paradigm of all of the complaints.Therefore, to the extent that the other twenty-one complaints have identical allegations to McDonald, their claims will state or fail to state a claim to the same extent as McDonald.

McDonald makes nine claims (unless otherwise indicated, the claim is made as to all defendants):

1.The actions and omissions of defendants, and the totality of conditions at SPSM, subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth Amendmentand42 U.S.C. § 1983.

2.Defendants' actions infringed upon his First Amendment rights of speech, religion and privacy, his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, his Sixth Amendment right of access to counsel and the courts, and his Fourteenth Amendment rights to procedural and substantive due process in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

3.Defendants' actions constituted a conspiracy to interfere with his access to the courts in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2).

4.Defendants' actions constituted a conspiracy to deprive him of civil rights as a member of a class of inmates at SPSM in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).

5.MCO conspired with persons acting under color of state law to deny him his civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

6.Defendants' actions prior to and on May 22, 1981 showed a gross neglect and refusal to take action to protect him from deprivation of his civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1986.

7.MCO, Fryt and the individual guard defendants acted with a purposeful and wanton disregard for his health and safety, thus intentionally inflicting emotional distress.

8.MCO, Fryt and the individual guard defendants breached their contract of employment with the state, of which he was a third party beneficiary.

9.Mintzes and Johnson were negligent in failing to protect his health, safety and right to exercise fundamental constitutional rights.

Appended to McDonald's complaint are sixteen exhibits which are incorporated by reference.These exhibits consist of state documents largely describing the events of May 22, 1981 and thereafter at SPSM; most are authored by prison officials including Mintzes.The detailed information in these exhibits is treated as part of the factual allegations of the complaint, Fed.R. Civ.P. 10(c).Therefore, the complaint presents a rich factual predicate upon which to test the legal sufficiency of the claims.

II.THE FACTS AS ALLEGED

Summarizing the McDonald complaint and exhibits, the following are the essential factual allegations.

During the month of May 1981, and particularly during the MCO spring conference on May 16, MCO members discussed and planned to take some kind of illegal action at SPSM.On May 21 Fryt and MCO Vice-President, defendantMichael Huey(Huey) presented Mintzes with a copy of a resolution passed at the May 16 conference.(The contents of the resolution are not alleged in this complaint nor disclosed in the exhibits).Fryt communicated to Mintzes that an unauthorized and illegal job action would take place.A memo from Mintzes to Johnson dated June 1, 1981 indicates that Mintzes was not told what kind of action would be taken or when it would occur.Prior to May 22 Mintzes and Johnson "were further made aware of the activities of the MCO and its officers" by Robert Brown, the Deputy Director of the Department of Corrections.What specific information was conveyed by Brown is not described.

Friday, May 22, preceded the Memorial Day weekend.Shortly after arriving at SPSM around 8:00 a.m., Deputy Warden Scott was informed that Fryt, Huey and defendantDavid Bokanowski(Bokanowski), another MCO officer, had asked to see him.Scott proceeded to the Warden's Office, where they were waiting; they asked him whether he would "lock down" the institution.Fryt indicated he was concerned that a recent "shakedown" of prisoners had been inadequate and complained that the custodial staff was too small to run the prison properly, a recurring MCO complaint.All three MCO officers stated they were tired of unproductive meetings and that they were going to proceed to lock down the prison at 10:00 a.m. that morning.

Scott called Mintzes at home around 8:30 a.m. and advised him of MCO's threat.Between 8:30 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. Fryt, Huey and Bokanowski used telephones in the warden's office, apparently without opposition from Scott and the other administrators present, to call in off-duty MCO members in preparation for the lockdown.Beginning at 10:00 a.m. MCO members on guard throughout the SPSM Central Complex refused to obey their superiors' orders to release prisoners from their cells at the scheduled times and told their superiors they were only taking orders from Fryt.MCO members at the entrance gate also refused to obey orders...