Cook v. Leitheim

1

DANIEL COOK, Plaintiff, v. UNKNOWN LEITHEIM et al., Defendants.

No. 1:22-cv-630

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

August 2, 2022

OPINION

Robert J. Jonker 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 (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.

Discussion

I. Factual Allegations

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 Warden or Deputy Warden Unknown Party, Lieutenant Unknown Leitheim, and Correctional Officer C. Metiva.

Plaintiff alleges that he was transferred to ICF on April 1, 2021, for scheduled surgery. (ECF No. 1, PageID.4.) Upon arrival at ICF, he was placed in an observation cell with a camera, even though he was not suicidal or homicidal. (Id.) Plaintiff “was content with being under a camera because he feared being assaulted or retaliated against by ICF staff” because of the “past treatment he went through there and him bringing and pursuing legal action regarding their conduct.” (Id.)

Plaintiff stayed in the observation cell for two weeks “in the same outfit and underclothes that he transferred into ICF wearing. (Id.) Plaintiff received his property two weeks after his transfer. (Id.) On the morning of April 22, 2021, Officer Way (not a party) and Defendant Metiva denied Plaintiff breakfast. (Id. PageID.4-5.) Plaintiff was then told that he “was being moved from the observation cell down the hall where prisoners were being segregated for serious assaults.” (Id., PageID.5.) Plaintiff objected to the move and requested to speak to the psychiatrist regarding “his fear and distress.” (Id.) His requests to do so were denied. (Id.) Defendant Leitheim ordered Plaintiff to allow staff to remove him from the observation cell and take him to the other cell. (Id.) Plaintiff responded that he “wanted to remain under the camera and speak with his psych.” (Id.) Defendant Leitheim then issued Plaintiff a misconduct for disobeying a direct order. (Id.)

An hour later, Defendants Metiva and Leitheim came to Plaintiff's cell and directed him to “back to the door and cuff up to be moved.” (Id.) Plaintiff told them he feared retaliation and was “in serious fear for his life” if he was moved “out from under a camera.” (Id.) Defendant Leitheim refused Plaintiff's request to speak to a psychiatrist and told Plaintiff that he would be physically moved by the Emergency Response Team (ERT) if he did not comply. (Id.) Plaintiff complied because he had suffered assaults by the ERT before. (Id.)

Plaintiff was moved to cell 35 in a unit that he alleges serves as a “punishment wing for serious misconducts.” (Id., PageID.6.) Plaintiff claims that he was the only one on that wing for fighting. (Id.) After being moved to cell 35, Plaintiff noticed the mattress was “destroyed.” (Id.) He notified Defendants Leitheim and Metiva, as well as Officers Elliot and Way. (Id.) They ignored his “pleas” and walked away. (Id.) Defendant Metiva returned to the observation cell to pack Plaintiff's property. (Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that there was a “huge lump” in the middle of the mattress and that the “whole foot” was torn open. (Id.) There was also no casing. (Id.) Plaintiff notified the unit officer that he thought there was something in the mattress and did not want to be charged “if it is a shank or other type of contraband.” (Id.) Plaintiff was told to “live with it” and that he would not get a new mattress. (Id.)

Defendant Metiva and Officer Way brought Plaintiff's property to him. (Id.) When Plaintiff was removed from his cell so that his property could be brought in, he told the officers to remove the mattress “because not only was it destroyed but he also believed there was a shank in it.” (Id.) Defendant Metiva took the mattress; Plaintiff's requests for a new mattress and a pillow were ignored. (Id.) Defendant Metiva then issued Plaintiff a misconduct for destruction or misuse of state property, claiming that Plaintiff “completely ripped the mattress apart.” (Id.) Plaintiff contends that the misconduct was fraudulent because the mattress was already destroyed. (Id.) As a result, Defendant Leitheim asked either Deputy Warden Sandborn or Warden Davids to place Plaintiff on a 30-day mattress restriction. (Id., PageID.7.) Defendant John Doe authorized the restriction for 30 days. (Id.)

Plaintiff alleges further that cell 35 had dirty and unsanitary floors and walls, and that there were “bugs and insects everywhere.” (Id.) The bed slabs had “restraint brackets that run across the width of the bed slab with bolts and eyelets that [rise] above the slab [by] inches.” (Id.) Plaintiff claims that it was “impossible” to sleep on the bled slab, even with three blankets, because it caused him “serious pain.” (Id.) Plaintiff “moved his makeshift blanket pallet to the floor that was unsanitary and full of insects/bugs.” (Id.) He suffered from insect bites for “nearly 30 days.” (Id.) Plaintiff also experienced “so much pain from sleeping on the hard cold surface.” (Id.) Plaintiff “continued to raise these issues with medical during their rounds and even submitted medical requests for pain medication and intervention.” (Id.) He further alleges that his “sleep pattern was interrupted” and that his “daily activity was affected with low energy, pain, fear, depression[,] and more.” (Id.)

Plaintiff contends that he was denied participation in the misconduct hearing process for the two misconducts noted above. (Id.) Plaintiff appealed and continued to “grieve to everyone who passed his cell.” (Id.) After “suffering these hardships for nearly 30 days,” Plaintiff was granted a rehearing on appeal. (Id., PageID.7-8.) During the rehearing, Plaintiff was found guilty of disobeying a direct order but found not guilty for destruction of state property. (Id., PageID.8.) He was given a new mattress. (Id.) Subsequently, Plaintiff told Defendant Leitheim that he should apologize. (Id.) Defendant Leitheim responded, “Just die!” (Id.) When Officer Bedman (not a party) was replacing Plaintiff's mattress, Plaintiff told him that “he was placed on mattress restriction for a mattress in the same condition.” (Id.) Officer Bedman told Plaintiff that he was “lucky that he did not get a case for the shank they ended up finding in that mattress.” (Id.)

Plaintiff alleges further that when he was placed on mattress restriction and officers were placing the mattress restriction sign on his cell door, other inmates “started objecting to the restrictions stating that Plaintiff did what he was suppose[d] to do by ‘immediately' notifying them the mattress was destroyed.” (Id.) Plaintiff “wasn't even in the cell with the cuffs off of him before he started notifying officers and the Defendants.” (Id.) Plaintiff also contends that his cell was never properly inventoried by Defendant Metiva and that he never received a cell inventory checklist pursuant to MDOC policies. (Id.)

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff asserts violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Id., PageID.4.) Plaintiff also asserts claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence under state law. (Id.) A liberal reading of Plaintiff's complaint also suggests that he could be raising First Amendment retaliation claims. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as “protection from future retaliation.” (Id., PageID.9.)

II. Failure To State a Claim

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. Id.; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”). The court must determine whether the complaint contains “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Although the plausibility standard is not equivalent to a “‘probability requirement,' . . . it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

“[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged-but it has not ‘show[n]'-that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Id. at 679 (qu...