Laster v. Pramstaller

• Decision Date: 10 October 2011
• Docket Number: CASE NO. 5:08-CV-10898
• Parties: QUENTIN LASTER, a/k/a Quentin Taylor, Plaintiff, v. GEORGE PRAMSTALLER, et al. Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

QUENTIN LASTER, a/k/a Quentin Taylor, Plaintiff,

v.GEORGE PRAMSTALLER, et al. Defendants.

CASE NO. 5:08-CV-10898

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Dated: September

Dated: October 10, 2011

JUDGE JOHN CORBETT O'MEARA

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL KOMIVES

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON THE DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO

DISMISS OR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (docket #65, 79, 115, 116, and 117)

I. RECOMMENDATION................................................................ 2

II. REPORT ........................................................................... 2

A. Procedural Background......................................................... 2

B. Sua Sponte Dismissal........................................................... 5

1. Legal Standard ........................................................ 5

2. ADA Claims-All Defendants.............................................. 6

3. Injunctive Relief-All Defendants........................................... 7

4. Failure to Serve-Defendants Fatu and Brown ................................ 8

C. Summary Judgment............................................................ 9

1. Legal Standard ........................................................ 9

2. Official Capacity Claims-All Defendants................................... 11

3. Personal Involvement-Defendants Pramstallar, Caruso, Armstrong, Stapleton, Vasbinder, Barrett, Budjos, Howell, Gilbert, and Scutt.................................. 11

4. Absolute Immunity-Defendants Israel, Ricci, Polzien, Zeller, and Salinas.......... 15

5. Eighth Amendment Claims-Various Defendants.............................. 17

a. Eighth Amendment Generally ......................................... 18

b. Defendant Bujdos................................................... 20

c. Cell Conditions-Resident and Corrections Officer Defendants................ 22

6. Retaliation-Defendants Jones, Clothier, Morey, Holder, and Elston.............. 23

7. Access to Courts-Defendant Cooke ....................................... 25

8. Exhaustion-Defendants Ford, Western, and Young ........................... 27

D. Conclusion .................................................................. 30

III. NOTICE TO PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS...................................... 30

I. RECOMMENDATION: The Court should grant the defendants' five pending motions to dismiss or for summary judgment, and should grant summary judgment to the moving defendants on plaintiff's constitutional claims under § 1983. The Court should also sua sponte dismiss plaintiff's claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act for failure to state a claim, plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief as moot, and plaintiff's claims against defendants Fatu and Brown for failure to effect service of process. If the Court accepts these recommendations, only plaintiff's claims against defendants Antonini and Scuccimarri will remain pending.

II. REPORT:

A. Procedural Background

Plaintiff Quentin Laster, also known as Quentin Taylor, is a former state prisoner who is currently on parole. At the times relevant to this action, plaintiff was incarcerated in the G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility in Jackson, Michigan. Plaintiff commenced this action on March 4, 2008, by filing a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 5, 2010, and a more definite statement on July 7, 2010. Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk entered an Order on August 5, 2010, construing the more definite statement as plaintiff's amended complaint.¹ Plaintiff names 33 defendants employed at the relevant times by the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) or Corrections Medical Services (CMS): George Pramstallar, MDOC Chief Medical Officer; MDOC Direct Patricia Caruso; MDOC Head Grievance Administrator James Armstrong; MDOC Policy and Hearings Administrator Richard Stapelton; Wardens Doug Vasbinder and Debra Scutt; Deputy Warden Joe Barrett; Doctors Audberto Antonini,Peter Scuccimarri, and Nicolae Fatu; psychologist Ed Budjos; Assistant Deputy Warden Larry Ford; Health Unit Manager Beth Gardon Howell; Assistant Librarian Jacqueline Cooke; Resident Unit Manager Sabena Western; Assistant Resident Unit Supervisors Gena Young and Colleen Rudd; Assistant Resident Unit Manager Robin Gilbert; Administrative Law Judges Joanne Ricci, Donald Israel, Thomas Polzien, and Maribeth Zeller; Sergeants Brown and Melinda Jones; Corrections Officers Stanley Arnold, Ed Clothier, Timothy Morley, David Pratt, and Jeffrey Elston; Resident Unit Officers Jennifer Holder, Silverio Ojeda, and James Lamb; and Hearings Investigator Joel Salinas. Plaintiff names each defendant in his or her individual and official capacities.

Plaintiff's amended complaint alleges that various defendants denied him pain medication, issued false misconduct tickets in retaliation for his complaints about his medical treatment, and failed to honor his special accommodation notices (SANs) and his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages. The matter is currently before the Court on five dispositive motions in which all but four of the defendants seek dismissal or summary judgment.

In the first motion, filed on October 4, 2010, defendants Caruso, Pramstallar, Stapleton, and Gilbert seek summary judgment on the basis that plaintiff has failed to establish their personal involvement in the alleged constitutional deprivations, and with respect to plaintiff's claims against them in their official capacities on the ground that they are immune under the Eleventh Amendment. The second motion pending before the Court is the motion for summary judgment filed on January 18, 2011, by defendants Arnold, Barrett, Clothier, Elston, Jones, Morey, Ojeda, Pratt, Ricci, Rudd, Salinas, Holder, Israel, Polzien, Scutt, Lamb, and Zeller. In this motion, all the moving defendants seek summary judgment with respect to plaintiff's official capacity claims on the ground of EleventhAmendment immunity. In addition, the moving defendants seek summary judgment: (1) with respect to defendants Scutt and Barrett based on their lack of personal involvement; (2) with respect to defendants Polzien, Israel, Ricci, Zeller, and Salinas based on their absolute immunity; and (3) with respect to plaintiff's claims against the remaining moving defendants, on the ground that plaintiff has failed to establish claims for retaliation and deliberate indifference. In the third motion, filed on May 19, 2011, defendant Cooke seeks dismissal of plaintiff's claims against her on the ground that he has failed to state a claim for relief based on a denial of access to courts, and with respect to plaintiff's official capacity claim on the ground that she is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. In the fourth pending motion, filed on May 23, 2011, defendants Vasbinder, Armstrong, Howell, and Bujdos seek summary judgment based on their lack of personal involvement, Eleventh Amendment immunity, and, with respect to plaintiff's claims against defendant Bujdos, on the ground that plaintiff has failed to establish a claim for deliberate indifference. Finally, on May 27, 2011, defendants Western, Ford, and Young filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his claims against them.

On December 2, 2010, plaintiff filed a response to the first pending motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Caruso, Pramstaller, Stapleton, and Gilbert. As of the date of this Report, plaintiff has not filed a response to any of the other motions, despite having been ordered to do so.² Further, four defendants-defendants Antonini, Scuccimarri, Fatu, and Brown-have yetto be served. It appears from the docket that the Marshal is attempting to effectuate service on defendants Antonini and Scuccimarri. With respect to defendant Fatu, on April 6, 2011, Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk entered an Order requiring plaintiff to provide a mail address by May 6, 2011, so that service could be effected. With respect to defendant Brown, Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk entered an Order on April 13, 2011, for plaintiff to show cause by May 4, 2011, why his claims against defendant Brown should not be dismissed in light of Brown's death. Plaintiff has not filed a response to either of these Orders.

For the reasons that follow, the Court should grant defendants' pending dispositive motions, and enter summary judgment in their favor. The Court should also sua sponte dismiss plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief and under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Finally, the Court should sua sponte dismiss plaintiff's claims against defendants Fatu and Brown for failure to serve. If the Court accepts these recommendations, only plaintiff's claims against defendants Antonini and Scuccimarri will remain before the Court.

B. Sua Sponte Dismissal

Before addressing defendants' dispositive motions, the Court should sua sponte dismiss plaintiff's claims brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act and for injunctive relief for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and should dismiss plaintiff's claims against defendants Fatu and Brown based on his failure to provide an address for service.

1. Legal Standard

The in forma pauperis statute, pursuant to which plaintiff is proceeding, provides that "[n]otwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shalldismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . (ii) fails to state a claim on which relieve may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii)-(iii). Further, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) provides that a court may sua sponte "dismiss any action brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by...