Sanders v. Macauley

JASON L. SANDERS et al., Plaintiffs, v. MATT MACAULEY et al., Defendants.

No. 1:22-cv-18

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

April 21, 2022

OPINION

Paul L. Maloney, United States District Judge

This is a civil rights action brought by 86^[1] state prisoners under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs seek redress from employees of the State government. Therefore, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (PLRA), the Court is required to screen the complaint “before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing ....” 28 U.S.C § 1915A(a). The Court is obligated 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 Plaintiffs' pro se complaint indulgently see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and accept Plaintiffs' allegations as true, unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). Applying the PLRA standard, the Court will dismiss the complaint because it is malicious and because it fails to state a claim. The Court will also deny Plaintiff Sanders' pending motions.

Discussion

I. Factual allegations

Plaintiffs are 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 they complain occurred at that facility. Plaintiffs sue the following IBC personnel: Warden Matt Macauley; Deputy Warden Unknown Walzach; Assistant Deputy Warden of Housing Brian Hadden; Prisoner Counselors Unknown Lemke and Craig Ritter; Corrections Officer Unknown Stuntman; Healthcare Unit Manager Unknown Part(y)(ies) #1; and Healthcare Unit Supervisor Unknown Part(y)(ies) #2.

Plaintiffs list what they style as 13^[2] separate “legal claims” for relief asserting rights provided under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Each claim relates in some way to IBC's response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Although this complaint may initially appear to resemble others that have been brought in the Western District of Michigan by prisoners since the start of the pandemic, this complaint is different for at least two reasons.

First Plaintiffs are not a single prisoner or a small group; they are 86 prisoners. Plaintiff Sanders prepared the complaint “on behalf of himself” and 85 other Plaintiffs who signed the complaint and, purportedly, “are similarly situated.”^[3] (Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.1.) Plaintiff Sanders provides a paragraph describing himself in the list of parties. (Id., PageID.4.) All of the other Plaintiffs are described collectively in a single paragraph. (Id.) Little is said about these 85 other Plaintiffs who are identified only because they signed the complaint. (Id., PageID.14-17.) The complaint explains merely that each of these 85 other Plaintiffs “is and was at all times mentioned” during the events described a prisoner at IBC on Unit 5. (Id., PageID.4.) Yet, it is not at all clear that even this description is correct.^[4] Moreover, the complaint fails to describe with particularity how any of the Plaintiffs other than Plaintiff Sanders has been harmed by any Defendant. The factual allegations that involve any Plaintiff other than Plaintiff Sanders refer only to prisoners generically, e.g., “prisoners, ” “[p]risoners on B side, ”^[5] (id., PageID.5, 7), without clarifying which Plaintiffs, if any, were involved. As a result, to the extent the complaint focuses on any prisoner, it focuses on Plaintiff Sanders.

Second, this is not Plaintiff Sanders' first, second, or even third complaint since September 2020 complaining of IBC's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Indeed, as another judge in this district recently noted,

[s]ince September 2020, Plaintiff has become a frequent litigant in this Court. During his first 20 years of incarceration, Plaintiff filed only six civil actions in the Western District of Michigan. It does not appear that Plaintiff has filed any civil actions in the Eastern District of Michigan. In less than 18 months since September 2020, Plaintiff has filed 7 actions in this Court.

Sanders v. Washington, No. 1:21-cv-1091, 2022 WL 247831, at *5 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 27, 2022). The instant action is Sanders' seventh of the seven.^[6] Three of the previous actions complained of IBC's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. See Sanders I; Sanders IV; Sanders VI.

In the instant action, which is Plaintiff Sanders' fourth challenge to IBC's pandemic response, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Macauley, Healthcare Supervisor Unknown Part(y)(ies) #1, and Healthcare Manager Unknown Part(y)(ies) #2 failed to order COVID-19 testing of IBC staff. (Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.8.) The complaint contends that, as a result, Defendant Stuntman introduced the novel coronavirus to IBC's Unit 5 when he “came to work” on December 16, 2021, and “pass[ed] out Christmas bags to . . . every 5 Unit prisoner.” (Id., PageID.5.) Defendant Stuntman allegedly had COVID-19 at the time, and sometime in the next three days, several Unit 5 prisoners tested positive.

The first set of prisoners who tested positive for COVID-19 were initially moved to Unit 8 before they were moved to the lower level of B Wing on Unit 5. By that time, Unit 5 allegedly had been placed on a COVID-related lockdown. On December 19, 2021, several other prisoners tested positive and “Unit-5's operation was shut down.” (Id., PageID.6.) What that purported shutdown encompassed is not altogether clear because the complaint next asserts that “[p]ositive COVID prisoners were all placed on B-lower in the [f]irst 7 or 8 cells ” (Id.) The complaint appears to allege that some of the Plaintiffs remained on the lower level of B Wing but had not tested positive for COVID-19 at that point in time. Additionally, the lower level of B Wing was closed off to the rest of Unit 5 and the rest of the prison. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Stuntman returned to work on the next Monday-presumably December 20, 2021.

Many of the complaint's remaining allegations challenge IBC's handling of the outbreak. Plaintiffs argue that “the showers . . . [we]re not power washed or properly cleaned” after prisoners with COVID-19 used them. (Id.) Plaintiffs aver that Unit 5 was not “properly bleached and sanitized” because “only” 2 sanitation workers wiped down surfaces. (Id.) Unspecified “[u]nit staff on 1st shift c[ould] be seen without their mask or any PPE” after seeing prisoners with COVID-19. (Id.) Defendant Macauley did not require that IBC staff test for COVID-19 after working on Unit 5. Defendants Healthcare Supervisor Unknown Part(y)(ies) #1 and Healthcare Manager Unknown Part(y)(ies) #2 did not conduct rounds on Unit 5 to question the health of those prisoners without COVID-19. During the outbreak on B Wing, prisoners could not enter A Wing to use the “J-Pay and store machines.” (Id., PageID.7.) While prisoners continued testing positive on Unit 5, prisoners from the unit were not permitted to go to the building that housed the law library, school, religious services, barbershop, or quartermaster. Prisoners on Unit 5 also had their daily exercise time reduced. Plaintiffs allege that IBC had multiple signs posted on B Wing stating that staff must wear personal protective equipment (PPE), but IBC did not supply prisoners who do not have COVID-19 with the same PPE.

Plaintiffs organize their factual allegations into what they assert are 13 legal claims for relief. Plaintiffs contend in twelve of the claims that the following conduct violated the Eighth Amendment:

Claim 1: Defendants Macauley, Healthcare Supervisor Unknown Part(y)(ies) #1, and Healthcare Manager Unknown Part(y)(ies) #2 failed to test IBC staff for COVID-19;

Claim 2: Defendants Macauley, Walzach, Hadden, Healthcare Supervisor Unknown Part(y)(ies) #1, and Healthcare Manager Unknown Part(y)(ies) #2 housed prisoners who had tested positive for COVID-19 on the same unit as those who had not;

Claim 3: Defendants Macauley, Walzach, Hadden, Healthcare Supervisor Unknown Part(y)(ies) #1, and Healthcare Manager Unknown Part(y)(ies) #2 did not provide porters additional PPE to enter cells of COVID-negative prisoners after using the PPE to enter cells of COVID-positive prisoners;

Claim 4: Defendant Macauley did not provide prisoners with bleach to clean their cells;

Claim 5: Defendant Macauley failed to enforce staff PPE requirements on the lower level of B Wing;

Claim 6: Defendant Macauley permitted COVID-negative prisoners to use the showers after COVID-positive prisoners without “properly sanitiz[ing]”;

Claim 7: Defendant Macauley shortened the time prisoners on Unit 5 could use the exercise yard;

Claim 8: Defendant Stuntman purportedly had COVID-19 and twice entered Unit 5;

Claim 9: Defendant Macauley did not provide PPE to COVID-negative prisoners on Unit 5;

Claim 10: Defendants Healthcare Supervisor Unknown Part(y)(ies) #1 and Healthcare Manager Unknown Part(y)(ies) #2 did not conduct rounds on Unit 5 to question the health of those prisoners without COVID-19;

Claim 11: Defendant Macauley denied at least some prisoners from Unit 5 the ability to go to the IBC 300 building, which houses the law library, chapel, school, barber, and psychological health services; and Claim 12b: Defendant Macauley placed COVID-positive prisoners and prisoners who had been in close contact with COVID-positive individuals in the same cells.

(Id., PageID.8-12.)

Plaintiffs further allege that two “claims” assert constitutional violations that...