Price v. Caruso

• Decision Date: 08 September 2006
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 05-CV-71403-DT.
• Citation: 451 F.Supp.2d 889
• Parties: Curwood PRICE, Plaintiff, v. Patricia CARUSO, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

451 F.Supp.2d 889

Curwood PRICE, Plaintiff, v. Patricia CARUSO, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 05-CV-71403-DT.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.

September 8, 2006.

Curwood Price, Jackson, MI, pro se.

Julia R. Bell, Michigan Department of Attorney General, Lansing, MI, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING IN PART MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION and GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR DISMISSAL

FRIEDMAN, Chief District Judge.

This matter is presently before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Dismissal for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.¹ Curwood Price ("Plaintiff') is a pro se prisoner. Patricia Caruso ("Defendant") is the Director of the Michigan Department of Corrections ("MDOC"). Plaintiff, who is Jewish, alleges that two official MDOC memorandums—signifying changes in prison policy—prevent him and other Jewish prisoners from holding adequate weekly Sabbath services and an annual Passover Seder.²

Magistrate Judge Steven Pepe has submitted a Report and Recommendation, in which he recommends that the Court grant in part Defendant's Motion for Dismissal. Plaintiff and Defendant object to the Report and Recommendation.

I. HISTORY OF THE CASE

A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the Muskegon Correctional Facility ("MCF") in Muskegon, Michigan. At the time that Plaintiff filed his Complaint in 2005, he was a prisoner at the former State Prison of Southern Michigan ("SPSM"), in Jackson, Michigan. More than a decade ago, the SPSM was divided into separate facilities, which include the Southern Michigan Correctional Facility ("JMF") and the Parnall Correctional Facility ("SMT"). (Def.'s Br. Supp. Mot. for Dismissal, 3; Mag. J.'s R & R, 3) At the time of the Complaint, Plaintiff was housed at the JMF. (Def.'s Br. Supp. Mot. for Dismissal, 2.)

Plaintiff alleges that two prison memorandums—dated February 27, 2004, and March 3, 2004—are violations of both the First Amendment and the caselaw established under an earlier Sixth Circuit case, Whitney v. Brown, 882 F.2d 1068, 1070 (6th Cir.1989).³ (Pl.'s Compl. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff states that both memorandums were issued by Special Activities Coordinator Dave Burnett⁴ (Id. ¶¶ 11-12) and "under the direction of the Defendant," (Id. ¶¶ 6-7).

The February 27, 2004, memorandum states, in relevant part:

SUBJECT: Jewish Services at JMF and SMT

. . . .

Effective April 1, 2004, JMF and SMT will no longer have combined worship services. Prisoners from SMT will no longer be transported to JMF for services. SMT will determine the appropriate time and space for their Jewish Services.

It is further noted that Kosher menu prisoners have no right to restricted or exclusive use seating. SMT Kosher menu line prisoners will be seated as directed by dining room staff.

It has been determined that the intent of the court order in Whitney v. Brown, 86-CV-1529-DT, will be satisfied with separate services because sufficient numbers of prisoners are housed at SMT to meet the requirement for ten men (a minyan) for a Torah service.

(Id. Ex. A.)

The March 3, 2004, memorandum states, in relevant part:

SUBJECT: Jewish Seder Pursuant to instructions from the Correctional Facilities Administration Special Activities Coordinator, Mr. Dave Burnett, the following changes are to be implemented as follows regarding the Seder Meals at JMF and SMT.

JMF and SMT will have separate Seders. That is, JMF will accommodate a Seder service and SMT will accommodate a separate Seder service. SMT will not transport prisoners to JMF for a Seder service . . .

Because some Jewish prisoners keep Kosher, the Seder must be Kosher. Consequently, Kosher for Passover plates shall be ordered from Aleph Institute, Surfside, Florida . . . If desired, a separate ceremonial plate may also be ordered . . . . No other vendor shall be used without approval from Mr. Burnett. Each prisoner who attends the Seder must pay his pro-rata share of the cost of the Seder . . . . Each Passover meal plate costs $10.00. Each prisoner is required to pay for his meal . . . . Each facility shall determine how the food will be ordered, received, stored, and made available to the space where it will be served. No food shall be removed by participating prisoners or Seder service leaders from the area where the Seder is observed.

Only those prisoners who have been regularly on call-out for Jewish services and/or study groups shall be eligible to participate in the Seder observance.

Guests shall be allowed only as follows:

• An appropriate Rabbi (or Cantor or other qualified person) plus not more than one assistant from the community shall be recruited by the Chaplain to conduct the Seder. Neither the Rabbi (or Cantor or other qualified person) nor the assistant is to be a family member of a prisoner nor on the approved visitor's list of any prisoner.

• Personal guests/family members shall not be allowed.

The facility, in cooperation with the person who will conduct the Seder, shall determine the length of time allowed for conducting the Seder.

. . . .

No additional food items, care packages, or treat sacks will be accommodated . . . .

(Id. Ex. B.)

Plaintiff seeks a Court declaration ordering that the two prison memoranda are invalid; granting injunctive relief to prevent further implementation of the memoranda; and awarding nominal, punitive, and compensatory damages. (Id. at 5-6.)

B. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 11, 2005, Plaintiff filed his Complaint.⁵ On October 28, 2005, Defendant filed its Motion for Dismissal for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Plaintiff responded.

On April 21, 2006, Magistrate Judge Steven Pepe issued a Report and Recommendation regarding Defendant's Motion for Dismissal. Both Plaintiff and Defendant filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff filed a Response to Defendant's objections.

II. MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

In his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Pepe recommends that Defendant's Motion for Dismissal be granted in part and therefore that several of Plaintiffs claims be, dismissed. Although Plaintiff did not expressly characterize his claims as such, Magistrate Judge Pepe interprets Plaintiffs Complaint as based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA," 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq.). (Mag. J.'s R & R, 1 & n. 1.) The Magistrate Judge recommends that "the following of Plaintiffs claims be dismissed: claims for injunctive and declaratory relief and damages claims arising from RLUIPA claim against Defendant in her personal capacity and § 1983 claim against Defendant in her official capacity." (Id. at 1.) In other words, Magistrate Judge Pepe finds that "[al]though Plaintiff's claims for injunctive and/or declaratory relief are mooted, Plaintiff's claim for monetary damages under § 1983 against Defendant in her personal capacity remains cognizable, as does the RLUIPA claim against her in her official capacity." (Id. at 11 (footnote omitted).)

III. ANALYSIS OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

As required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court reviews this matter de novo. FED.R.Crv.P. 72(b). Having made such a review, the Court will grant Defendant's Motion for Dismissal in part.

A. PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

The United States Supreme Court has held that the courts should hold a "pro se complaint" to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). The Sixth Circuit has explained, though, that in spite of such liberal treatment of the pleadings of pro se litigants, such as prisoners, "pro se plaintiffs are not automatically entitled to take every case to trial." Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 4).3, 416 (6th Cir.1996). In other words, "the lenient treatment generally accorded to pro se litigants has limits." Id. Thus, while a court should liberally interpret a pro se complaint, a court should neither re-invent a plaintiffs complaint nor plead allegations that a plaintiff wishes not to pursue. Such actions would be condescending and overly paternalistic, and it would grind against the time-old principle that a plaintiff is the master of his complaint. For instance, the United States Supreme Court has found that "the party who brings a suit is master to decide what law he will rely upon." The Fair v. Kohler Die & Specialty Co., 228 U.S. 22, 25, 33 S.Ct. 410, 57 L.Ed. 716 (1913). Therefore, this Court liberally interprets pro se complaints, but always honors a plaintiff as the master of his own pleadings.

Here, the Magistrate Judge has liberally interpreted Plaintiffs Complaint. For instance, although Plaintiff does not mention RLUIPA in his Complaint, Magistrate Judge Pepe states that Plaintiffs "response to Defendant's motion asserts a RLUIPA claim and the facts of his complaint are sufficient to allege a RLUIPA claim." (Mag. J.'s R & R, 1 n. 1.) The Magistrate Judge also interprets the facts of Plaintiffs Complaint as presenting a Section 1983 claim, even though Plaintiff did not mention. Section 1983. (Id. at 1.) Thus, Magistrate Judge Pepe bases his recommendations on Plaintiffs having presented a cause of action pursuant to Section 1983 and RLUIPA.

Plaintiff, though, expressly disagrees with part of the Magistrate Judge's interpretation. On the first page of his "Objection to Magistrate's Report and Recommendation," Plaintiff directly states—in bold, capital letters—"THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT FILE A 1983 ACTION." (Pl.'s Objection to Mag. J.'s R & R, 1.) Plaintiff further explains, again using underlines and bold text: "In the Plaintiffs original action he filed a complaint for Declaratory Judgement [sic] pursuant to 28 USCA § 2201, and not 42 USCA § 1983." (Id.) Moreover, Plaintiff states, in similar textual style, that the "Plaintiff specifically AVOIDED § 1983, as he believes section § [sic]...