Sanders v. Washington

• Citation: 582 F.Supp.3d 543
• Decision Date: 27 January 2022
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:21-cv-1091
• Parties: Jason L. SANDERS, Plaintiff, v. Heidi E. WASHINGTON et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

582 F.Supp.3d 543

Jason L. SANDERS, Plaintiff,

v.Heidi E. WASHINGTON et al., Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-1091

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

Signed January 27, 2022

Jason L. Sanders, Ionia, MI, Pro Se.

OPINION

Jane M. Beckering, United States District Judge

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, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), and accept Plaintiff's allegations as true, unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez , 504 U.S. 25, 33, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992). Applying these standards, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's complaint because it is malicious and frivolous. The Court will further deny Plaintiff's pending motion for leave to supplement the complaint.

Discussion

I. Factual allegations

Plaintiff is presently incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) at the Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility (IBC) in Ionia, Ionia County, Michigan. The events about which he complains occurred at that facility. Plaintiff sues MDOC Director Heidi E. Washington and the following IBC personnel: Warden Matt Macauley; Deputy Warden Unknown Walzaeff¹ ; Healthcare Supervisor Unknown Parties #1; Healthcare Unit Manager Unknown Parties #2; Nurse Unknown Buckley; Assistant Deputy Warden of Housing Unknown Parties #3; First and Second Shift Commanders Unknown Parties #4; and Sergeant Unknown Wagner. Plaintiff also sues the following IBC personnel but does not provide their position or title: Unknown Battle, Unknown Stroll, Unknown Lane, Unknown Zuki, and Unknown Robinson.

At first glance, Plaintiff's complaint resembles dozens of others that have been brought in the Western District of Michigan by prisoners with legitimate fears posed by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and frustrations with their prisons’ responses. Yet, on closer inspection, Plaintiff's complaint resembles several others that he has previously brought in this Court against many of the same defendants.

In the instant complaint, Plaintiff alleges a sprawling series of conduct spanning approximately a year, from March 2020 to March 2021. (See Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.13.)

Plaintiff alleges that in March 2020, Governor Gretchen Whitmer declared a state of emergency and imposed multiple measures for the public and in Michigan prisons to limit the spread of COVID-19 in the State, but IBC staff failed to comply. (Id. , PageID.2–3.) Later, IBC staff failed to adhere to masking orders. (Id. , PageID.5.) They also came to work while positive with COVID-19, and Defendants did not require that IBC staff to test before entering the facility. (Id. , PageID.3.)

On May 18, 2020, the National Guard and IBC staff tested prisoners for COVID-19 without taking adequate measures to limit transmission. (Id. , PageID.3.)

On multiple occasions from March to August 2020, unidentified Defendants summoned Plaintiff and other prisoners to the control tower or to healthcare services where social distancing was neither maintained nor possible. (Id. , PageID.4, 5.)

On August 26, 2020, test results returned, which presumably found that several IBC prisoners had tested positive for COVID-19. (Id. , PageID.5.) Defendants Washington and Macauley stopped all transfers out of IBC. (Id. ) From August 26 to August 29, 2020, Defendants Macauley, Klein, and Walzaeff permitted prisoners to eat and work in the dining hall without social distancing. (Id. , PageID.6.)

Plaintiff alleges that at some point during the year-long span, he was issued a false misconduct and placed in segregation. (Id. ) After serving his sanction, he was directed to return to his cell. Plaintiff refused to comply with the order because he purportedly believed that it would place his health at risk. Defendant Wagner reported Plaintiff for misconduct, presumably because Plaintiff failed to comply with a direct order. Plaintiff alleges that this was unlawful. (Id. )

Starting in late January or early February, IBC experienced a second wave of COVID-19 infections with the B.1.1.7 variant. Plaintiff contends that kitchen workers from several units became ill because Defendants did not fumigate or sanitize the dining hall and other areas. (Id. , PageID.7.) Plaintiff further complains that Defendants did not adequately clean the ventilation system or windows. (Id. , PageID.7–8.)

Prisoners who worked as porters, including Plaintiff's cellmate, "were denied any protective gear" while they cleaned. (Id. , PageID.4.) They also purportedly were not provided bleach cleaning solution or sanitizer. (Id. , PageID.10.)

On February 14, 2021, Plaintiff moved into a cell with a food service worker who at some point tested positive for COVID-19. (Id. , PageID.8.) On February 20, 2021, Plaintiff moved again into a cell with another prisoner who at some point tested positive for COVID-19. (Id. , PageID.9.) Plaintiff tested positive for COVID-19 several days later.

While Plaintiff and his unit locked down due to the outbreak, he alleges that medical staff did not round on his unit, grievances were not collected, and Defendants Stroll and Battle did not distribute or collect legal mail. (Id. ) Plaintiff further avers that no custody or administrative staff came to the unit to speak with prisoners. (Id. ) He alleges that he was hospitalized due to COVID-19, but he was only ever provided ibuprofen by IBC healthcare staff. (Id. , PageID.10–11.) Plaintiff purportedly was never called out by healthcare services for COVID-19 issues. (Id. , PageID.11.)

Plaintiff contends that Defendants Washington and Macauley failed to provide Plaintiff an environment where he could avoid contracting COVID-19. (Id. ) He further asserts that Defendants Washington and Macauley refused to decrease the population at IBC. (Id. )

At some point, Plaintiff alleges that his legal property was vandalized purportedly because he complained about cold showers.² (Id. , PageID.12.)

Notably, Plaintiff also alleges that he has been unlawfully confined to IBC since December 23, 2020, (id. , PageID.2) and that he is serving a sentence for conviction of a misdemeanor (id. , PageID.12).

Plaintiff also lists five jumbled claims that each assert multiple constitutional arguments ostensibly supported by the above factual allegations. (Id. , PageID.13–17.)

Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief, $100 million in compensatory damages, $250 million in punitive damages, and costs.

II. Malice and Frivolity

Because the instant complaint repeats many factual allegations and claims that Plaintiff has previously raised in the federal courts, the Court must determine whether the complaint is frivolous or malicious.

A. Standard

Plaintiffs generally have "no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the same defendants." Walton v. Eaton Corp. , 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir. 1977). Accordingly, as part of its inherent power to administer its docket, a district court may dismiss a suit that is duplicative of another federal court suit. See Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States , 424 U.S. 800, 817, 96 S.Ct. 1236, 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976) ; Adams v. California Dep't of Health Serv. , 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) ; Missouri v. Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc. , 259 F.3d 949, 953–54 (8th Cir. 2001) ; Curtis v. Citibank, N.A. , 226 F.3d 133, 138–39 (2d Cir. 2000) ; Smith v. SEC , 129 F.3d 356, 361 (6th Cir. 1997). The power to dismiss a duplicative lawsuit is meant to foster judicial economy and the "comprehensive disposition of litigation," Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Fire Equip. Co. , 342 U.S. 180, 183, 72 S.Ct. 219, 96 L.Ed. 200 (1952), and to protect parties from "the vexation of concurrent litigation over the same subject matter." Adam v. Jacobs , 950 F.2d 89, 93 (2d Cir. 1991).

Moreover, prisoners who bring civil actions in forma pauperis face additional constraints due to statutory barriers when bringing duplicative claims. See, e.g. , Bailey v. Johnson , 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) ("[T]he court's power of dismissal in IFP cases under section 1915(d)³ is broader than in other civil cases under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."). The PLRA commands that district courts "shall review ... as soon as practicable ... a complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer" and dismiss it if it "is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim ...." 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

The Sixth Circuit has not provided clear guidance as to the meaning of "malicious" in § 1915A(b)(1) or its analogues in § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(2).⁴ However, the Eleventh Circuit recently joined all other circuits that have confronted the question to conclude that a "duplicative complaint is an abuse of the judicial process and is properly dismissed without prejudice as malicious" for prisoners suing governmental entities and those proceeding in forma pauperis. Daker v. Ward , 999 F.3d 1300, 1308 (11th Cir. 2021) ; accord Day v. Toner , 530 F. App'x 118, 121 (3d Cir. 2013) ("[A] complaint is malicious where it is abusive of the judicial process and merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims ...."); Bailey v. Johnson , 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988) ("[R]epetitious litigation of virtually identical causes of action may be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) as malicious.") (alteration in original); Aziz v. Burrows , 976 F.2d 1158, 1158–59 (8th Cir. 1992) (confirming rule...