Rains v. Washington
| Decision Date | 10 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:20-cv-32 |
| Parties | JAMES RAHEEM RAINS, Plaintiff, v. HEIDI WASHINGTON et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Honorable Paul L. Maloney
This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim against Defendant A. Jeffery. The Court will also dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim against AMF Defendants Warden Daniel Lesatz; Deputy Warden Dennis Peterson; Food Service Director M. Callentine; Food Steward ("Cook") K. Minerick; Food Service Supervisors Hakola, Nelson, Jungek, Leionen, Collins, Hansvick, Johnson, Mulani, and Unknown Parties; and Grievance Coordinator T. Hamel. The Court will also dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim against MDOC Defendants Heidi Washington, Food Service Contract Manager Unknown Party, and Richard Russell.
Applying these standards the Court will also dismiss, for failure to state a claim, the following claims against remaining Defendants Deputy Director Unknown Party, Special Activities Coordinator Steve Adamson, Dieticians Patricia Willard and Kelly Wellman, Health Unit Manager Gloria Hill, Health Unit Supervisor Jamie Monville, and Nurse Patricia Lamb: Plaintiff's free exercise and RLUIPA claims relating to the ten-month delay in obtaining approval to participate in the Halal diet, the specific foods served at particular meals, and the fact that the Halal diet at the prison is vegan; claims for violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Establishment Clause; claims for violation of Plaintiff's due process rights; claims for violation of Plaintiff's equal protection rights; and claims for violation of the Plaintiff's First Amendment right to access the courts.
Plaintiff's claims that the Free Exercise Defendants violated his First Amendment free exercise rights, RLUIPA rights, and Eighth Amendment rights by refusing to accommodate Plaintiff's soy allergy remain.
Plaintiff is presently incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) at the Baraga Correctional Facility (AMF) in Baraga County, Michigan. The events about which he complains occurred at that facility. Plaintiff sues MDOC Director Heidi Washington; Deputy Director Unknown Party #1; Special Activities Coordinator Steve Adamson; Food Service Contract Manager Unknown Party #2; Health Unit Manager Gloria Hill; Grievance Manager Richard D. Russell; Nurse Patricia Lamb; and Dieticians Patricia Willard and Kelly Wellman. Plaintiff sues AMF Warden Daniel Lesatz; Deputy Warden Dennis Peterson; GrievanceCoordinator T. Hamel; Food Service Director M. Callentine; Food Service Supervisors Unknown Hakola, Unknown Nelson, Unknown Jungek, D. Leionen; Unknown Collins, Unknown Hansvick, Unknown Johnson, Unknown Mulani, and Unknown Parties; Food Steward K. Minerick; and Health Unit Supervisor Jamie Monville. Plaintiff lists in the caption of his complaint Defendant A. Jeffery; but, Plaintiff does not identify Jeffery in the body of his complaint nor does he reference Jeffery in any factual allegations. Plaintiff sues all Defendants in their individual and official capacities.
Plaintiff alleges that he arrived at AMF during November of 2017. During June or July of 2018, Plaintiff asked to be placed on the Halal diet because he is a practicing Muslim. On August 28, 2018, Plaintiff was approved for the Halal trays. Apparently, however, neither Plaintiff nor the AMF food service was made aware of the approval for months. On June 16, 2019, Plaintiff filed a grievance because he had not received his Halal trays. Chaplain Snyder explained the Plaintiff had been approved almost a year earlier. The delay in providing Plaintiff the trays or at least notice that he had been approved was not explained. Nonetheless, having identified the failure, Plaintiff started to receive his Halal diet trays.
After a few days, Plaintiff was dissatisfied with his Halal diet trays for several reasons: (1) the food on the trays was not proportionate to the food on the regular trays; (2) the food was half-cooked or uncooked; (3) the food tasted as if it was spoiled; (4) the food did not include items he should have been receiving, i.e., dairy, fish, and meat; instead, it was all vegan. Plaintiff grieved these issues to no avail.
Plaintiff also complained that the soy menu items caused him stomach problems. In the process of resolving his grievances, he was informed that the soy issue was a healthcare issue, not a religious issue, and that he should direct his concerns regarding soy to healthcare.
Healthcare personnel provided Plaintiff with antacid. Plaintiff grieved the issue. The grievance responses indicate that Plaintiff complained he had vomited when he was provided the soy menu items. He was scheduled to see the medical provider, but the provider downplayed the problem at the appointment. Plaintiff claims the healthcare worker who scheduled the appointment indicated Plaintiff's problem was acid reflux and the doctor would only see Plaintiff for acid reflux. Because Plaintiff did not concur that the problem was acid reflux, the doctor would not help him or even examine him. The grievance response also indicates that Plaintiff's weight was stable or increasing on the Halal diet. Plaintiff does not challenge that fact.
Plaintiff then details problems with his Halal trays for some meals during October and November 2019. Plaintiff filed grievance after grievance about the food. Plaintiff has attached to the complaint as exhibits his grievances and the responses. Because of the frequency of his grievance filings and because they were deemed duplicative, Plaintiff was placed on modified access to the grievance remedy.
Plaintiff complains that he has no ability to buy his own food because he is often in segregation and, for that reason, cannot work a prison job. He is entirely dependent on the MDOC for nutrition. He claims that he is allergic to soy and that the MDOC offers no nutritionally adequate Halal diet that does not include soy. He contends that healthcare personnel will not recognize his allergy and authorize an alternative diet that complies with his religious diet requirements.
Plaintiff raised the soy problem with Defendant Wellman (ECF No. 1-1, PageID.31), Defendant Hamel (Id., PageID.30, 31), and Defendant Adamson (Id., PageID.33). He raised it by way of general health care requests (Id., PageID.44, 50; ECF No. 1-2, PageID.107; ECF No. 1-3, PageID.126-128, 144-145) and grievances (ECF No. 1-1, PageID.45-49, 56-57; ECFNo. 1-2, PageID.58-62, 76-81, 111-113; ECF No. 1-3, PageID.135-140, 146-150). Defendants Dieticians Patricia Willard and Kelly Wellman, Health Unit Manager Gloria Hill, Health Unit Supervisor Jamie Monville, and Nurse Patricia Lamb all played some role in rejecting Plaintiff's request for a modification of his diet to accommodate his soy allergy. These Defendants informed Plaintiff that his requests were rejected because the MDOC Diet Manual does not allow diet modifications to address individual food intolerances.
Plaintiff identifies several specific "causes of action" he is raising. First, Plaintiff claims that the MDOC policy of serving a vegan diet, in lieu of a Halal diet that includes meat and dairy, violates his sincere religious beliefs in violation of The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). (Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.19.) Plaintiff next complains that the "Health Care Staff" Defendants are deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. (Id., PageID.19-20.) Plaintiff contends that Defendants are denying him access to the courts by placing him on modified access to grievance remedies. (Id., PageID.20.) Finally, Plaintiff complains that Defendants, by impeding and denying his administrative remedies, are retaliating against him for exercising his First Amendment rights. (Id.) Plaintiff also includes in an introductory paragraph a list of additional potential constitutional violations: "denial of [Plaintiff's] right to free exercise clause, establishment clause in violation of the first amendment . . . due process clause; equal protection clause, and discrimination in violation of the fourteenth amendment . . . ." (Id., PageID.2; see also PageID.18, ¶ 81.)
Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief stating that his rights have been violated as well as compensatory and punitive damages exceeding $1,500,000.00. Additionally, Plaintiff asks the Court to order Defendants to provide certified Halal meals in accordance with Plaintiff's religious beliefs and practices.
A complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it fails "'to give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). While a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's allegations must include more than labels and conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (). The...
To continue reading
Request your trial