Cook v. Huss

DANIEL COOK, Plaintiff, v. ERICA HUSS et al., Defendants.

No. 1:21-cv-613

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

April 22, 2022

OPINION

Honorable Paul L. Maloney Judge

This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court may at any time, with or without motion, add or drop a party for misjoinder or nonjoinder. Fed.R.Civ.P. 21. Applying Rule 21, the Court will drop Defendants MDOC, Washington, Unknown Party #1, Vashaw, Maranka, Wood, Brown, Howard, Kelley Leitheim, Mygrant, Wellman, Stambaugh, Martens, Fornwalt Wells, Jex, Watkins, Demps, Dozeman, Caffiero, Psychiatrist Unknown Party #2, and Unknown Party #3 from this action and dismiss the claims against them without prejudice. The Court will further dismiss without prejudice as misjoined the claims against Defendants Zupon, Novak, Traylor, and Davids other than Plaintiff's claims that they investigated or were involved with the grievance related to Plaintiff's lost legal documents.

Additionally 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. The Court will also resolve Plaintiff's pending motions.

Discussion

T. Background

Plaintiff is presently incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) at the Marquette Branch Prison (MBP) in Marquette, Marquette County, Michigan. The events about which he complains, however, occurred at the Ionia Correctional Facility (ICF) in Ionia, Ionia County, Michigan. Plaintiff sues the MDOC, MDOC Director Heidi Washington, and MDOC “Manager/Director of Mental Health” Unknown Party #1. Plaintiff also sues the following ICF staff: Warden John Davids; Deputy Warden Unknown Vashaw; Assistant Deputy Warden (ADW) Unknown Traylor; Unit Chief Unknown Maranka; Assistant Resident Unit Supervisor (ARUS) Unknown Luther; Captain Unknown Wood; Lieutenants Unknown Brown, Unknown Howard Unknown Kelley, and Unknown Leitheim; Correctional Officers Unknown Mygrant, Unknown Wellman, Unknown Stambaugh, Unknown Martens, Unknown Fornwalt, Unknown Wells, Unknown Jex, and Unknown Watkins; Hearings Investigator Unknown Demps; Law Librarian Techs Unknown Zupon and Unknown Novak; Psychiatrist Unknown Party #2; Psychologist Unknown Dozeman; Nurse Unknown Caffiero; and Unknown Party #3.^[1]

A. Procedural history

Previously, in an order filed on August 20, 2021 (ECF No. 10), the Magistrate Judge directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint because his original complaint spanned 223 pages and alleged conduct by 108 misjoined defendants at 4 prisons over 3 years. Plaintiff filed objections. (ECF No. 12.) In an order filed on October 8, 2021 (ECF No. 17), the undersigned granted Plaintiff 70 days to file an amended complaint but otherwise denied Plaintiff's objections. Soon thereafter, the Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff's request for a copy of his entire 223-page original complaint to facilitate drafting an amended complaint. Although Plaintiff's amended complaint was entered onto the docket the day before the Magistrate Judge issued that order, Plaintiff has not sought leave to file a second amended complaint with the benefit of access to the full original complaint.

B. Factual allegations

Plaintiff's amended complaint describes several events that predominantly occurred at ICF during October and November 2018. Several months earlier, in February 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint in Cook v. Corizon Health, Inc., No. 2:18-cv-25 (W.D. Mich.). Plaintiff appears to allege that his litigation in Cook v. Corizon earned him a reputation, and as a result, all of the misconduct described in the instant amended complaint is retaliation for “pursuing the action and [Plaintiff] being known as a litigant.” (Am. Compl., ECF No. 18, PageID.322.)

In the earliest conduct described by the amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Luther lost documents that Plaintiff had prepared for Cook v. Corizon. Plaintiff states that on October 22, 2018, he gave Defendant Luther 47 pages of discovery requests to be photocopied. Purportedly under MDOC policy, Plaintiff should have received the original documents and the photocopies within 72 hours. He did not, so he began inquiring about their whereabouts. In response to Plaintiff's inquiries, on October 29, 2018, Luther told Plaintiff that he had given the documents to the law library staff.

After speaking with Defendant Luther, Plaintiff filed a grievance complaining of the lost documents. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Zupon, Traylor, and Davids interfered with his litigation. Plaintiff apparently argues that Zupon, Traylor, and Davids “forged the grievance process” because someone returned his grievance form with a receipt date and identifier number but lacking a response and any signatures beyond his own. (See ECF No. 18-2, PageID.350.) Plaintiff raised the issue, and on November 2, 2018, or perhaps sometime later, ^[2] he received a full response with signatures. (See ECF No. 18-3, PageID.351.) On November 2, 2018, Defendants Zupon and Novak also interviewed Plaintiff regarding the grievance. Zupon and Novak purportedly said that Luther “probably failed to process the copies, ” and that it would not matter anyway because Plaintiff had been placed on a paper restriction. Although the complaint is not altogether clear, it appears that Plaintiff never received the documents.

The remainder of the complaint bears little connection to the loss of Plaintiff's documents. Plaintiff alleges that on October 30, 2018, he placed a message to corrections officers in his cell door window, which obstructed the view into his cell. He contends that he received a “fraudul[e]nt misconduct” as a result even though other prisoners purportedly put messages in their windows. (Am. Compl., ECF No. 18, PageID.333.) On November 5, 2018, after Plaintiff refused to comply with Defendant Howard's directions related to Plaintiff's paper restriction, Howard allegedly called Plaintiff a “white boy” and suggested that prison officials would use tear gas, or some other similar agent, on him. Plaintiff asserts that he felt “humiliated and emba[r]rassed” by Howard's use of the term “white boy.” (Id., PageID.334.)

Shortly thereafter, ICF's Emergency Response Team arrived and restrained Plaintiff. While still inside Plaintiff's cell, Defendant Mygrant held Plaintiff's television, made a comment about it, and the television later disappeared without any receipt.

Plaintiff allegedly moved into a “punishment wing” cell that had feces and blood on multiple surfaces. On November 6, 2018, he “held his door slot open.”^[3] (Id., PageID.335.) As a result, Plaintiff was removed from his cell, put in “soft standing restraints, ” and placed in a new cell. (Id., PageID.355-56.) Plaintiff largely remained in restraints for approximately 10 days. On November 9, 2018, while Plaintiff was still in restraints, Defendants Kelley, Mygrant, Caffiero, and possibly others, allegedly kicked him, pulled on his drop chain, punched him, and knocked him over. The next day, on November 10, 2018, Plaintiff was interviewed for an assault misconduct for purportedly injuring Mygrant's knee. Plaintiff remained in the restraints for several more days. On November 14, 2018, Defendant Davids ordered the removal of Plaintiff's restraints, but Plaintiff refused to allow their removal. Plaintiff refused to permit the removal of his restraints until Davids provided Plaintiff access to all his legal property regardless of his paper restriction. Davids initially rejected Plaintiff's proposal, but on November 16, 2018, Davids returned all of Plaintiff's legal property and Plaintiff permitted the removal of the restraints.

On November 20, 2018, ^[4] Defendant Luther gave Plaintiff the documents that had accumulated while Plaintiff was on the paper restriction. Plaintiff learned that corrections officers had reported Plaintiff multiple times for misconduct. Plaintiff alleges that multiple Defendants falsely reported that Plaintiff refused to participate in his misconduct hearings.

Plaintiff further seeks copies of his medical records without fee. He alleges that he was denied free copies of those records to support his efforts in Cook v. Corizon. Plaintiff further alleges that he filed two motions in the earlier action that sought free copies of his medical records. Both motions were denied. Plaintiff states that he continued pursuing a copy of his medical records until 2020, and he “wants to refile his medical claims” that were dismissed on summary judgment in 2018. (Am. Compl., ECF No. 18, PageID.342-43.)

Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and all costs and fees.

II. Failure to comply

Plaintiff's amended complaint fails to comply with the Magistrate Judge's order, which obliges the Court to consider whether the complaint should be dismissed under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A. Standard

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure confers on district courts the authority to...