Jennings v. Bennett

• Decision Date: 29 August 2017
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:17-cv-555
• Parties: MARK COLIN JENNINGS II, Plaintiff, v. UNKNOWN BENNETT et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

MARK COLIN JENNINGS II, Plaintiff, v. UNKNOWN BENNETT et al., Defendants.

Case No. 1:17-cv-555

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

August 29, 2017

Honorable Robert J. Jonker

OPINION

This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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) (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, Plaintiff's action will be dismissed without prejudice for misjoinder with respect to Defendants Roy, Hall, and MacKay. Plaintiff's action will be dismissed for failure to state a claim with respect to Defendants Bennett, Britton, Rohrbacher, Trinity Food Service, and Dalton.

Factual Allegations

Plaintiff Mark Colin Jennings II is presently incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) at the Oaks Correctional Facility (ECF) in Manistee, Michigan. The events about which he complains occurred there during June of 2017. Plaintiff sues the following ECF personnel: Lieutenant Unknown MacKay, Corrections Officers Unknown Bennett, Unknown Britton, Unknown Roy, and Travis Hall; Nurse Jennifer Dalton; Food Service Supervisor Unknown Rohrbacher; and Trinity Food Service.

The first incident about which Plaintiff complains occurred on June 4, 2017. On that date, Plaintiff examined his lunch and discovered he had been served one carrot slice, one 3/4 inch by 3/4 inch piece of turkey meat, and one raw biscuit. (Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.7.) Plaintiff took his tray to Defendant Rohrbacher and asked for the correct portion. Rohrbacher instructed Plaintiff to eat it or throw it away, but Plaintiff would not receive another serving.

Plaintiff alleges that he then suffered an involuntary muscle contraction spasm (he suffers from Huntingtons Chorea disorder) and dropped his tray. Rohrbacher, according to Plaintiff, saw things differently because she exclaimed: "He just threw the tray at me!"¹ At that point, Defendants Bennett and Britton intervened.

Plaintiff contends that Defendants Bennett and Britton saw the incident and knew that Plaintiff had not thrown his tray. Defendants Bennett and Britton also saw things differently. Defendant Britton reported that Plaintiff threw his tray on the ground towards Defendant Rohrbacher. (Misconduct Report, ECF No. 1-1, PageID.29.) Defendant Bennett reported thatPlaintiff intentionally dropped his tray at Defendant Rohrbacher's feet. (Memorandum, ECF No. 1-1, PageID.34.)

Defendants Bennett and Britton handcuffed Plaintiff and brought him to segregation. Plaintiff contends they repeatedly used excessive force while cuffing and transporting him, causing Plaintiff severe and painful injuries. In response to Plaintiff's complaints regarding the excessive force, one of the officers stated: "You're a liar!" (Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.8.) The other stated: "This is what you get for molesting children!" (Id.)

The next day, Plaintiff saw Defendant Dalton to obtain treatment for the injuries sustained at the hands of Bennett and Britton. Plaintiff alleges that Dalton refused to treat him for his injuries and falsified the medical reports to cover-up the excessive use of force.

Defendant Britton filed a misconduct report against Plaintiff relating to the June 4 incident. Britton accused Plaintiff of threatening behavior, a major misconduct, and creating a disturbance, a minor misconduct. (Misconduct Report, ECF No. 1-1, PageID.29.) On June 6, 2017, Hearing Officer Timothy Baywal conducted a hearing. Based on his review of witness statements and video of the incident, Hearing Officer Baywal concluded that, although Plaintiff intentionally dropped the tray thereby creating a disturbance, Plaintiff did not throw the tray in a threatening manner. (Misconduct Hearing Report, ECF No. 1-1, PageID.31-33.) Accordingly, Hearing Officer Baywal found Plaintiff not guilty of the major misconduct but guilty of the minor misconduct. (Id.) Plaintiff received a sanction of fifteen days loss of privileges.² In a June 15, 2017 letter to ECFInspector Clouse, Plaintiff further reports that Defendants Britton and Bennett, upon submitting the allegedly falsified misconduct reports, told Plaintiff: "this is what you get for suing Hall and Stone." (June 15, 2017 Correspondence, ECF No. 1-1, PageID.54.)

Plaintiff then shifts to an entirely separate incident on June 10, 2017. (Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.13.) On that date, Defendant Roy wrote a Class III, minor misconduct report for violation of posted rules against Plaintiff for passing legal supplies with inmate Michael Anthony Grabinski. Plaintiff does not deny that he and inmate Grabinski were exchanging legal supplies, but he explains that he required Grabinski's assistance to type the complaint in this case because of the injuries Plaintiff sustained on June 4. On June 12, 2017, Assistant Resident Unit Supervisor Brinkley found Plaintiff guilty of the charged offense and sanctioned Plaintiff with 8 days loss of privileges.

Plaintiff then turns to an incident on June 14, 2017. On that date, Defendant Hall wrote an allegedly falsified misconduct for insolence against Plaintiff. According to Plaintiff, on May 31, 2017, while waiting in the medication line, he asked Defendant Hall whether he hadanswered Plaintiff's interrogatories in another pending case. Defendant Hall, however, claimed that Plaintiff insolently asked if Hall had a good attorney. (Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.17; Misconduct Report, ECF No. 1-1, PageID.49; Statement of Defense, ECF No. 1-1, PageID.50; Declaration of James Cross, ECF No. 1-1, PageID.52; Grievance, ECF No. 1-1, PageID.68.) At the June 18, 2017 hearing, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant MacKay directly ordered Plaintiff to not practice any further litigation against Defendant Hall and threatened to punish Plaintiff for disobeying a direct order if Plaintiff failed to comply. (Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.18.) Plaintiff does not provide information regarding the disposition of that misconduct.

Plaintiff's complaint purports to state the following claims:

1. an Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Bennett, Britton, Rohrbacher, and Trinity for conspiring to use and then using excessive force in cuffing and transporting him to segregation on June 4, 2017;

2. an Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Bennett, Britton, Rohrbacher, and Trinity for conspiring to deny and then denying Plaintiff sufficient nutrition;

3. an Eighth Amendment claims against Defendant Dalton for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs;

4. a First Amendment claim against Defendants Bennett, Britton, Rohrbacher, and Trinity for conspiring to use and then using force in retaliation for Plaintiff's request for more food;

5. a First Amendment claim against Defendants Bennett, Britton, Rohrbacher, and Trinity for conspiring to deny and then denying Plaintiff sufficient nutrition in retaliation for Plaintiff's request for more food;

6. a First Amendment claim against Defendants Bennett, Britton, Rohrbacher, and Trinity for conspiring to pursue and then pursuing the false threatening behavior/creating a disturbance misconducts in retaliation for Plaintiff's request for more food and Plaintiff's lawsuit against Defendants' colleagues;7. a First Amendment claim against Defendant Roy for directly interfering with Plaintiff's access to the courts;

8. a First Amendment claim against Defendant Hall for writing a false misconduct against Plaintiff in retaliation for Plaintiff's lawsuit against Defendant Hall; and,

9. a First Amendment claim against Defendant MacKay for direct interference with Plaintiff's access to the courts by threatening to discipline Plaintiff for misconduct if Plaintiff pursued litigation against Defendant Hall.

(Compl., ECF No. 1.)

Plaintiff asks the Court to enter a declaratory judgment stating that Defendants have violated his constitutional rights, to enter permanent injunctive relief directing Defendants to stop violating Plaintiff's constitutional rights, and to award compensatory and punitive damages against each Defendant. Plaintiff also asks the Court to grant several types of temporary injunctive relief (ECF No. 3). Most recently, Plaintiff has asked the Court to allow him to file an amended complaint to add additional claims against Defendant Hall and to add claims against corrections officer Joshua Stone. The claims Plaintiff seeks to add are claims that are presently pending in Jennings v. Crompton, No. 1:16-cv-921 (W.D. Mich.), but are on the verge of being dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Discussion

I. Misjoinder

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a) limits the joinder of parties in single lawsuit, whereas Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18(a) limits the joinder of claims. Rule 20(a)(2) governs when multiple defendants may be joined in one action: "[p]ersons . . . may be joined in one action as defendants if: (A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternativewith respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action." Rule 18(a) states: "A party asserting a claim . . . may join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it has...