Rouse v. Caruso, CASE NO. 06-CV-10961-DT

• Court: United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Michigan)
• Writing for the Court: MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL KOMIVES
• Parties: ARTHUR ROUSE, CLAUDE HOFFMAN, GUY CURTIS, MICHAEL KANIPE, DOUGLAS WARNER, CARLTON RIDER, DANNY FRITTS, RICHARD BOONE II, TONY PELLIN, MARK ASHLEY, TERRY GEORGE, WILLIAM TAYLOR, LOREN WICKER, MICHAEL LAKE, STEWART GATES, ROBERT McMURRAY, ERICK DeFOREST, ANTONIO MANNING, HILTON EVANS, JOHN DOE, ONE through SEVEN, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. MDOC DIRECTOR PATRICIA CARUSO, WARDEN BLAINE LAFLER, AND DEPUTY WARDEN BARBARA MEAGHER, THEIR SUPERIORS, SUBORDINATES, SUB-CONTRACTORS, CONTRACTORS, REPLACEMENTS, PREDECESSORS, AND JOHN/JANE DOE, EIGHT through FOURTEEN, in their individual and official capacity, Defendants.
• Docket Number: CASE NO. 06-CV-10961-DT
• Decision Date: 18 February 2011

ARTHUR ROUSE, CLAUDE HOFFMAN, GUY CURTIS, MICHAEL KANIPE,
DOUGLAS WARNER, CARLTON RIDER, DANNY FRITTS, RICHARD BOONE II,
TONY PELLIN, MARK ASHLEY, TERRY GEORGE, WILLIAM TAYLOR, LOREN WICKER,
MICHAEL LAKE, STEWART GATES, ROBERT McMURRAY, ERICK DeFOREST,
ANTONIO MANNING, HILTON EVANS, JOHN DOE, ONE through SEVEN,
on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs,
v.
MDOC DIRECTOR PATRICIA CARUSO, WARDEN BLAINE LAFLER,
AND DEPUTY WARDEN BARBARA MEAGHER, THEIR SUPERIORS, SUBORDINATES,
SUB-CONTRACTORS, CONTRACTORS, REPLACEMENTS, PREDECESSORS,
AND JOHN/JANE DOE, EIGHT through FOURTEEN,
in their individual and official capacity, Defendants.

CASE NO. 06-CV-10961-DT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

February 18, 2011

JUDGE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL KOMIVES

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON (1) DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (docket #226); (2) DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (docket #230); AND (3) DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (docket #231)

I. RECOMMENDATION: The Court should grant defendants' motion to dismiss, grant in part and deny in part defendants' motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, and grant in part and deny in part defendants' motion for partial summary judgment.

II. REPORT:

Page 2

A. Background

Plaintiffs, nineteen current and former inmates of the St. Louis and Mid-Michigan Correctional Facilities in St. Louis, Michigan, commenced this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 3, 2006. Plaintiffs bring claims, on behalf of themselves and a purported class of all prisoners at the St. Louis and Mid-Michigan Correctional Facilities¹, against the defendant prison officials relating to the conditions of confinement at the facilities. Plaintiffs' complaint is divided into five claims for relief: (1) an Eighth Amendment claim based on denial of medical care and medication, dangerous noise levels, denial of restroom use, serious disease outbreaks, and prisoners being forced to wait in the cold to receive medications; (2) an Eighth Amendment claim based on cold cubicles and poor ventilation, cramped living space, denial of hygiene, and contaminated drinking water; (3) an Eighth Amendment claim based on the lack of a proper fire suppression system, overcrowded conditions, and prisoner access to inmates' files; (4) a First Amendment access to courts claim based on inadequate law library time and inadequate law library resources; and (5) a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim based on removal of property without a proper hearing and removal of funds from prisoner accounts without hearing and in excess of that authorized by law.

Five plaintiffs were subsequently dismissed from the action, and pro bono counsel was appointed to represent the remaining 14 plaintiffs. On October 21, 2008, counsel filed an amended complaint. In the amended complaint plaintiffs, now consisting solely of current or former inmates

Page 3

of STF, assert three counts, broken down into numerous subparts, some of which are further broken down into sub-subparts, as illustrated in the following chart:

COUNT	CLAIM	SUBPART	SUB-SUBPART	AMEND. COMPL.
I	Eighth Amendment; Violations	(A) Cruel &; Unusual Punishment	(1) Denial of; Medical Care	¶¶ 27-29
			(2) Dangerous; Noise Levels	¶¶ 30-31
			(3) Denial of; Bathroom Use	¶¶ 32-33
			(4) Disease; Outbreaks	¶¶ 34-39
			(5) Medline; Prisoners Forced; into Cold	¶ 40
		(B) Inhumane; Treatment	(1) Cold Cubicles; and Poor Ventilation	¶¶ 41-44
			(2) Crammed Living; Space	¶¶ 45-47
			(3) Denial of; Hygiene	¶¶ 48-49
			(4) Contaminated; Drinking Water	¶¶ 50-52
		(C) Unsafe Living; Conditions	(1) Lack of Fire; Suppression System	¶¶ 53-55
			(2) Overcrowding	¶¶ 56
			(3) Access to; Prisoner's Personal; Files	¶¶ 57-58
II	First, Fifth, and; Fourteenth; Amendment Access; to Courts Violations	(A) Inadequate Law Library Time		¶¶ 59-61
		(B) Limited Law Books		¶¶ 62-64
		(C) Seizure of Property and Legal Materials		¶¶ 65-66
III	14th Amendment; Due Process; Violations	Removal of Property or Money without a; Hearing		¶¶ 67-73

The named defendants are Patricia Caruso, Director of the Michigan Department of Corrections

Page 4

(MDOC); Blaine Lafler, the Warden at STF during the relevant time period; and Barbara Meagher, a Deputy Warden at STF during the relevant time period. The complaint also names as defendants unknown employees of Correctional Medical Services, Inc., and unknown MDOC employees in the Bureau of Health Care Services. Plaintiffs seek $10,000,000.00 in compensatory damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.²

On March 23, 2010, counsel sought to withdraw with respect to eight of the remaining fourteen plaintiffs, based on their inability to contact these plaintiffs and these plaintiffs' failure to appear for their depositions or provide requested discovery. I granted counsel's motion to withdraw on April 30, 2010. The remaining plaintiffs represented by counsel are Claude Hoffman, Michael Kanipe, Richard Boone, William Taylor, Michael Lake, and Hilton Evans. The remaining plaintiffs who are no longer represented by counsel are Arthur Rouse, Danny Fritts, Tony Pellin, Stewart Gates, Terry George, Mark Ashley, Robert McMurray, and Eric DeForest.

The matter is currently before the Court on three dispositive motions filed by the named defendants. First, on April 20, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the eight unrepresented plaintiffs for failure to cooperate in discovery pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 37(d) and for failure to prosecute pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). No plaintiff has filed a response to this motion. Second, on June 1, 2010, defendants filed a partial motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(c). This motion seeks dismissal for failure to state a claim of plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims alleging denial of medical care (Claim I(A)(1)), denial of bathroom use (Claim I(A)(3)), disease outbreak (Claim I(A)(4)), medline prisoners being forced to wait in the cold (Claim I(A)(5)),

Page 5

cold cubicles (¶ 41 of Claim I(B)(1)), denial of hygiene (Claim I(B)(3)), contaminated drinking water (Claim I(B)(4)), and access to prisoner's personal files (Claim I(C)(3)). The motion also seeks dismissal for failure to state a claim of Counts II and III of the amended complaint. The represented plaintiffs filed a response to the motion on July 6, 2010, and defendants filed a reply on July 20, 2010. No unrepresented plaintiff has filed a response to the motion. Third, also on June 1, 2010, defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 56. Defendants contend that they are entitled to summary judgment on the merits of plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment claims alleging excessive noise (Claim I(A)(2)), inadequate ventilation (¶¶ 42-44 of Claim I(B)(1)), overcrowding (Claims I(B)(2) and I(C)(2)), contaminated drinking water (Claim I(B)(4)), and lack of fire safety (Claim I(C)(1)). Defendants also contend that they are entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's hygiene and fire safety claims (Claims I(B)(3) and I(C)(1)) based on their lack of personal involvement. Defendants further argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to plaintiffs' claims against them in their individual capacities and to Eleventh Amendment immunity with respect to plaintiffs' claims against them in their official capacities. Finally, defendants argue that because none of the plaintiffs is still incarcerated at the St. Louis Correctional Facility, their claims for injunctive relief are moot. The represented plaintiffs filed a response to this motion on July 6, 2010, and defendants filed a reply on July 20, 2010. None of the unrepresented plaintiffs has filed a response to this motion.

B. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Unrepresented Plaintiffs

In the first motion pending before the Court, defendants seek dismissal of the eight unrepresented plaintiffs for failure to cooperate in discovery or for failure to prosecute. The Court should grant defendants' motion and dismiss these plaintiffs for failure to prosecute the action.

1. Dismissal for Failure to Cooperate in Discovery

Page 6

Defendants first move to dismiss the unrepresented defendants pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 37(d), based on their failure to provide discovery. Rule 37(d) provides, in relevant part, that

[t]he court where the action is pending may, on motion, order sanctions if:
(I) a party or a party's officer, director, or managing agent--or a person designated under Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a)(4)--fails, after being served with proper notice, to appear for that person's deposition; or
(ii) a party, after being properly served with interrogatories under Rule 33 or a request for inspection under Rule 34, fails to serve its answers, objections, or written response.

FED. R. CIV. P. 37(d)(1)(A). The rule further provides that "[s]anctions may include any of the orders listed in Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vi)." FED. R. CIV. P. 37(d)(3). The sanctions referenced in Rule 37(b), in turn, include "dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part." FED. R. CIV. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v). Ordering dismissal or default³ to sanction a party to the litigation is usually reserved for situations akin to contempt of court or other abusive practices. See, e.g., Chambers v. NASCO, 501 U.S. 32, 45-46 (1991); Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 765 (1980). Generally, this sanction is not available unless the conduct of the complaining party was done willfully, maliciously, or in bad faith. See, e.g., National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, 427 U.S. 639, 640 (1976) (per curiam). Before imposing a sanction of dismissal or default, a court should consider the prejudice to the complaining party, the degree of the wrongdoer's culpability, the availability of other measures to redress the problem, and the societal...