Moore 779951 v. Goulet

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ______ TYREESE MOORE, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:22-cv-279 v. Honorable Sally J. Berens UNKNOWN GOULET et al., Defendants. ____________________________/ OPINION This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff previously sought and was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 4.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff consented to proceed in all matters in this action under the jurisdiction of a United States magistrate judge. (ECF No. 5.)

This case is presently before the Court for preliminary review under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (PLRA), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). The Court is required to conduct this initial review prior to the service of the complaint. See In re Prison Litig. Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131, 1131, 1134 (6th Cir. 1997); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604–05 (6th Cir. 1997). Service of the complaint on the named defendants is of particular significance in defining a putative defendant’s relationship to the proceedings.

“An individual or entity named as a defendant is not obliged to engage in litigation unless notified of the action, and brought under a court’s authority, by formal process.” Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 347 (1999). “Service of process, under longstanding tradition in our system of justice, is fundamental to any procedural imposition on a named defendant.” Id. at 350. “[O]ne becomes a party officially, and is required to take action in that capacity, only upon service of a summons or other authority-asserting measure stating the time within which the party served must appear and defend.” Id. (citations omitted). That is, “[u]nless a named defendant agrees to waive service, the summons continues to function as the sine qua non directing an individual or entity to participate in a civil action or forgo procedural or substantive rights.” Id. at 351. Therefore, the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (PLRA), by requiring courts to review and even resolve a plaintiff’s claims before service, creates a circumstance where there may only be one party to the proceeding—the plaintiff—at the district court level and on appeal. See, e.g., Conway v. Fayette Cnty. Gov’t, 212 F. App’x 418 (6th Cir. 2007) (“Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the district court screened the complaint and dismissed it without prejudice before service was made upon any of the defendants . . . [such that] . . . only [the plaintiff] [wa]s a party to this appeal.”).

Here, Plaintiff has consented to a United States magistrate judge conducting all proceedings in this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). That statute provides that “[u]pon the consent of the parties, a full-time United States magistrate judge . . . may conduct any or all proceedings . . . and order the entry of judgment in the case . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Because the named Defendants have not yet been served, the undersigned concludes that they are not presently parties whose consent is required to permit the undersigned to conduct a preliminary review under the PLRA, in the same way they are not parties who will be served with or given notice of this opinion. See Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532 (5th Cir. 1995) (“The record does not contain a consent from the defendants[; h]owever, because they had not been served, they were not parties to this action at the time the magistrate entered judgment.”).1 Under the 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. § 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, for failure to state a claim, Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claims as well as his claims regarding violations of Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) policy and rules. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants remain.

Discussion Factual Allegations Plaintiff is presently incarcerated with the MDOC at the Earnest C. Brooks Correctional Facility (LRF) in Muskegon Heights, Muskegon County, Michigan. The events about which he complains occurred at that facility. Plaintiff sues Corrections Officers Unknown Goulet, Unknown

1 But see Coleman v. Lab. & Indus. Rev. Comm’n of Wis., 860 F.3d 461, 471 (7th Cir. 2017) (concluding that, when determining which parties are required to consent to proceed before a United States magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), “context matters” and the context the United States Supreme Court considered in Murphy Bros. was nothing like the context of a screening dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)); Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503–04 (9th Cir. 2017) (relying on Black’s Law Dictionary for the definition of “parties” and not addressing Murphy Bros.); Burton v. Schamp, 25 F.4th 198, 207 n.26 (3d Cir. Feb. 10, 2022) (premising its discussion of “the term ‘parties’ solely in relation to its meaning in Section 636(c)(1), and . . . not tak[ing] an opinion on the meaning of ‘parties’ in other contexts”).

Bradfield, Unknown Hack, Unknown Oppermann, Unknown Busch, Unknown Strickland, Unknown Jimension, and Unknown Butcher.

Plaintiff alleges that on August 17, 2021, he was housed in the Dublin unit on the transition wing. (ECF No. 1, PageID.4.) He claims that from that date until October of 2021, he requested cleaning supplies but was denied such by all Defendants. (Id.) Plaintiff avers that the denial of such cleaning supplies forced him to live in “close confines to human waste” when other inmates flooded their cells. (Id.) Although Plaintiff suggests the failure to provide cleaning supplies spans the two-month period referenced in his complaint, he does not allege any circumstance that put him in “close confines to human waste” until the last two weeks of the two-month period.

Plaintiff avers that on October 6, 2021, he requested cleaning supplies from all Defendants but was denied. (Id., PageID.5.) Two days later, an inmate in cell 93 flooded his cell. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that “feces and urine began to come into [his] cell.” (Id.) Plaintiff requested cleaning supplies but was denied. (Id., PageID.6.) He claims that he was “forced to sit in a flooded cell with feces and urine floating on the floor.” (Id.) That same day, an inmate in cell 78, which was right next to Plaintiff’s cell, flooded the toilet. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that feces and urine began to flow under his cell door. (Id.) Plaintiff again requested cleaning supplies but was denied by all Defendants. (Id.) On October 9, 2021, Plaintiff asked Defendants Jimension and Goulet for cleaning supplies. (Id.) They denied his request, stating, “We don’t have cleaning supplies to do clean up.” (Id.) That same day, cell 78 flooded again, causing feces and urine to flow under Plaintiff’s cell door. (Id.) Plaintiff requested cleaning supplies; his request was denied by Defendant Hack. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that a porter came to clean the water and waste from cell 78 but that no porter was sent to clean his cell. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that on that same day, his eye became infected “as a result of the unsanitary conditions he was forced to live in.” (Id.) He went to healthcare for treatment. (Id.) Three days later, on October 12, 2021, “Plaintiff’s eye began to swell and hurt so he went to healthcare w[h]ere he was treated or at least comforted for the moment.” (Id., PageID.7.)

On October 15, 2021, another inmate flooded his cell, causing feces and urine to come into Plaintiff’s cell. (Id.) He requested cleaning supplies; his request was denied by all Defendants. (Id.) On October 20, 2021, Plaintiff “was finally allowed to clean his cell after two months of being denied cleaning supplies.” (Id.) Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff asserts violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Id., PageID.8–9.) He also suggests that Defendants’ actions violated MDOC Policy Statement 03.03.130(B)(1), requiring that he be provided a “clean and orderly” environment, as well as the LRF Level IV Prisoner Guidebook and Housing Unit Rule providing that inmates on the transition wings would receive room cleaning on Tuesdays and Thursdays. (Id., PageID.7.) Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages. (Id., PageID.9.)

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. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; 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 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)); see also Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470–71 (6th Cir. 2010) (holding that the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard applies to dismissals of prisoner cases on initial review under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the federal Constitution or laws and must show that the deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Street v. Corr.

Corp. of Am., 102 F.3d 810, 814 (6th Cir. 1996). Because Section 1983 is a method for vindicating federal rights, not a source of substantive rights itself, the first step in an action under Section 1983 is to identify the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994).

A. Eighth Amendment Claims The Eighth Amendment imposes a constitutional limitation on the power of the states to punish those convicted of crimes. Punishment may not be “barbarous,” nor may it contravene society’s “evolving standards of decency.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 345–46 (1981). The Amendment, therefore, prohibits conduct by prison officials that involves the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Ivey v. Wilson, 832 F.2d 950, 954 (6th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (quoting Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 346). The deprivation alleged must result in the denial of the “minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347; see also Wilson v. Yaklich, 148 F.3d 596, 600–01 (6th Cir. 1998). The Eighth Amendment is only concerned with “deprivations of essential food, medical care, or sanitation” or “other conditions intolerable for prison confinement.” Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 348 (citation omitted). Moreover, “[n]ot every unpleasant experience a prisoner might endure while incarcerated constitutes cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment.” Ivey, 832 F.2d at 954. “Routine discomfort is ‘part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society.’” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992) (quoting Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347). Consequently, “extreme deprivations are required to make out a conditions-of-confinement claim.” Id. For a prisoner to prevail on an Eighth Amendment claim, he must show that he faced a sufficiently serious risk to his health or safety and that the defendant official acted with “‘deliberate indifference’ to [his] health or safety.” Mingus v. Butler, 591 F.3d 474, 479–80 (6th Cir. 2010) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (applying deliberate indifference standard to medical claims)); see also Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35 (1993) (applying deliberate indifference standard to conditions of confinement claims)). The deliberate-indifference standard includes both objective and subjective components. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834; Helling, 509 U.S. at 35–37. To satisfy the objective prong, an inmate must show “that he is incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. Under the subjective prong, an official must “know[] of and disregard[] an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Id. at 837. “[I]t is enough that the official acted or failed to act despite his knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm.” Id. at 842. “It is, indeed, fair to say that acting or failing to act with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm to a prisoner is the equivalent of recklessly disregarding that risk.” Id. at 836. “[P]rison officials who actually knew of a substantial risk to inmate health or safety may be found free from liability if they responded reasonably to the risk, even if the harm ultimately was not averted.” Id. at 844.

In this case, Plaintiff contends that beginning October 8, 2021, and continuing through October 21, 2021, he was repeatedly exposed to other inmates’ human waste when those inmates flooded their cells and the waste flowed into Plaintiff’s cell. Plaintiff also alleges that he repeatedly asked for cleaning supplies when these incidents happened, and that his requests were denied by all Defendants. Moreover, while a porter was sent to clean one of the flooded cells, Plaintiff’s cell was not cleaned. Plaintiff also suggests that because of the long-term exposure to others’ waste, he developed an eye infection requiring medical care. Given these allegations, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has set forth plausible Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claims against Defendants at this time. See Taylor v. Riojas, 141 S. Ct. 52, 53 (2020) (concluding that a prisoner who alleged that he was placed in “shockingly unsanitary” cells for six days, one of which was covered in “massive amounts” of feces and the other of which was equipped with only a clogged drain to dispose of bodily waste, stated a violation of the Eighth Amendment); Taylor v. Larson, 505 F. App’x 475, 477 (6th Cir. 2012) (concluding that a prisoner who alleged that he was forced to remain in a cell covered in fecal matter for three days stated a claim under the Eighth Amendment).

B. Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Claims Plaintiff also contends that Defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by subjecting him to “pain through unsanitary living conditions which [were] not a part of the penalty he was sentenced to.” (ECF No. 1, PageID.9.) Presumably, Plaintiff intends to raise a substantive due process claim.2 Alternatively, Plaintiff may refer to the Fourteenth Amendment solely for its incorporation of the relevant provisions under the Eighth Amendment, see Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 667 The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from “depriv[ing] any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law[.]” U.S. Const. amend. XIV.

“Substantive due process ‘prevents the government from engaging in conduct that shocks the conscience or interferes with rights implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.’” Prater v. City of Burnside, 289 F.3d 417, 431 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 746 (1987)). “Substantive due process ... serves the goal of preventing governmental power from being used for purposes of oppression, regardless of the fairness of the procedures used.” Pittman v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Dep’t of Child. & Fam. Servs., 640 F.3d 716, 728 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Howard v. Grinage, 82 F.3d 1343, 1349 (6th Cir. 1996)). “Conduct shocks the conscience if it ‘violates the “decencies of civilized conduct.”’ Range v. Douglas, 763 F.3d 573, 589 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 846–47 (1998) (quoting Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 172-73 (1952))).

“Where a particular [a]mendment ‘provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection’ against a particular sort of government behavior, ‘that [a]mendment, not the more generalized notion of “substantive due process,” must be the guide for analyzing these claims.’”

Albright, 510 U.S. at 269 (quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394 (1989) (holding that the Fourth Amendment, not substantive due process, provides the standard for analyzing claims involving unreasonable search or seizure of free citizens, and the Eighth Amendment provides the standard for such searches of prisoners), overruled on other grounds by Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001)). If such an amendment exists, the substantive due process claim is properly dismissed.

Heike v. Guevara, 519 F. App’x 911, 923 (6th Cir. 2013).

(1962), as applied to the States. In that event, no further discussion of the Fourteenth Amendment claim is required.

In this case, the Eighth Amendment provides an explicit source of constitutional protection to Plaintiff concerning his deliberate indifference claims. See Graham, 490 U.S. at 394 (citing Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 327 (1986)) (rejecting a substantive due process claim where the Eighth Amendment supplies a textual source for prison-condition claims); Dodson v. Wilkinson, 304 F. App'x 434, 438 (6th Cir. 2008) (concluding that because the Eighth Amendment supplies the explicit textual source of constitutional protection for claims governing a prisoner’s health and safety, the plaintiff’s substantive due process claim was subject to dismissal). Thus, the standard applicable to that source, the Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, and not the more generalized notion of substantive due process, should be applied.

Consequently, Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claims against Defendants will be dismissed.

C. Violations of MDOC Policy and LRF Rules Plaintiff suggests that Defendants’ actions violated MDOC Policy Statement 03.03.130(B)(1), requiring that he be provided a “clean and orderly” environment, as well as the LRF Level IV Prisoner Guidebook and Housing Unit Rule providing that inmates on the transition wings would receive room cleaning on Tuesdays and Thursdays. (Id., PageID.7.)

Claims under Section 1983 can only be brought for “deprivations of rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., Inc., 457 U.S. 922, 924 (1982). Section 1983 does not provide redress for a violation of a state law. Pyles v. Raisor, 60 F.3d 1211, 1215 (6th Cir. 1995); Sweeton v. Brown, 27 F.3d 1162, 1166 (6th Cir. 1994); see also Laney v. Farley, 501 F.3d 577, 580–81 & n.2 (6th Cir. 2007). To demonstrate a violation of procedural due process, a plaintiff must prove the following elements: (1) a life, liberty, or property interest requiring protection under the Due Process Clause, and (2) a deprivation of that interest (3) without adequate process. Women's Med. Prof’l Corp. v. Baird, 438 F.3d 595, 611 (6th Cir. 2006). “Without a protected liberty or property interest, there can be no federal procedural due process claim.” Experimental Holdings, Inc. v. Farris, 503 F.3d 514, 519 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 579 (1972)).

Courts routinely have recognized that a prisoner does not enjoy any federally protected liberty or property interest in a state procedure. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 250 (1983); Laney, 501 F.3d at 581 n.2; Brody v. City of Mason, 250 F.3d 432, 437 (6th Cir. 2001); Sweeton, 27 F.3d at 1164; Smith v. Freland, 954 F.2d 343, 347–48 (6th Cir. 1992); Barber v. City of Salem, 953 F.2d 232, 240 (6th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff's allegations that Defendants violated MDOC and LRF policy and rules, therefore, fail to state a claim for relief.

Conclusion Having conducted the review required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Court determines that Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claims and claims regarding violations of MDOC policy and LRF rules will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A(b), and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants remain in the case.

An order consistent with this opinion will be entered.

Dated: April 26, 2022 /s/ Sally J. Berens SALLY J. BERENS U.S. Magistrate Judge