UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION ______

SAMMIE JOHNSON,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:24-cv-197

v. Honorable Ray Kent

SARA SCHROEDER et al.,

Defendants. ____________________________/ OPINION This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner under

. The Court has granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order. Pursuant to

(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. 4.) This case is presently before the Court for preliminary review under the Prison Litigation Reform Act,

Stat. 1321 (1996) (PLRA), pursuant to

(e)(2) and 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,

(6th Cir. 1997); McGore v. Wrigglesworth,

, 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.,

(1999). “Service of process, under longstanding tradition in our system of justice, is fundamental to any procedural imposition on a named defendant.”

. “[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.”

(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.”

. Therefore, the 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,

(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

(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 . . . .”

(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,

(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.

(e)(2),

1915A; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). The Court must read Plaintiff’s pro se complaint indulgently, see Haines v. Kerner,

(1972), and accept Plaintiff’s allegations as true, unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez,

(1992). Applying these standards, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim. Discussion 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 occurred at that facility. Plaintiff sues Warden Sara Schroeder in her individual and official capacities. Plaintiff also sues Corrections Officers Erik Lakanen and Unknown Etelamaki in their individual capacities. (Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.2.)

Plaintiff alleges that on July 18, 2024, Plaintiff was being housed in A Unit. (Id.) During the pertinent time period, Defendants Lakanen and Etelamaki were responsible for security in A

1 But see Coleman v. Lab. & Indus. Rev. Comm’n of Wis.,

(7th Cir. 2017) (concluding that, when determining which parties are required to consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge under

(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

(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)); Williams v. King,

, 503–04 (9th Cir. 2017) (relying on Black’s Law Dictionary for the definition of “parties” and not addressing Murphy Bros.); Burton v. Schamp,

, 207 n.26 (3d Cir. 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”). Unit. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that during count time, Prisoner Lorne King #167639 boiled an unknown substance in the microwave on Blue Wing of A Unit and then walked past Defendants Lakanen and Etelamaki to Green Wing. (Id., PageID.3.) Prisoner King then went to Plaintiff’s cell and threw the boiling liquid on him, causing Plaintiff to be seriously injured. As a result, Plaintiff suffered second-degree burns to the right side of his body, which was extremely painful and caused

nerve damage and emotional distress. (Id.) Plaintiff asserts that Prisoner King has a history of harming other prisoners and staff and was known to Defendants, including Defendant Schroeder, as a violent and dangerous inmate. (Id.) Plaintiff states that Defendants failed to protect him from Prisoner King in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff seeks damages. (Id., PageID.3–4.) 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,

(2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson,

(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,

(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,

. “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,

. 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.”

at 678 (quoting Twombly,

). “[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.”

at 679 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)); see also Hill v. Lappin,

, 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)(ii)). To state a claim under

, 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,

(1988); Street v. Corr. Corp. of Am.,

(6th Cir. 1996). Because § 1983 is a method for vindicating federal rights, not a source of substantive rights itself, the first step in an action under § 1983 is to identify the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed. Albright v. Oliver,

(1994). A. Defendant Schroeder 1. Official Capacity Claims As an initial matter, Plaintiff brings claims against Defendant Schroeder in both her individual and official capacities. Ordinarily, a suit against an individual in his or her official

capacity is equivalent to a suit brought against the governmental entity, in this case, the MDOC. See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police,

(1989); Matthews v. Jones,

(6th Cir. 1994). However, “the MDOC, however, is not a ‘person’ within the meaning of § 1983.” Parker v. Mich. Dep’t of Corr.,

(6th Cir. 2003) (citing Will v. Mich. Dep’t of Corr.,

(1989) for the proposition that “the MDOC is not a person within the meaning. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Defendant Schroeder in her official capacity.2

2 Regardless of the form of relief requested, the states and their departments are immune under the Eleventh Amendment from suit in the federal courts, unless the state has waived immunity or 2. Individual Capacity Claims With respect to Plaintiff’s individual capacity claims against Defendant Schroeder, Plaintiff fails to allege that Defendant Schroeder took any action against him, but merely suggests that she is responsible for the events detailed in his complaint by virtue of her position as warden of MBP. Government officials may not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their

subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior or vicarious liability. Iqbal,

; Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Soc. Servs.,

(1978); Everson v. Leis,

(6th Cir. 2009). A claimed constitutional violation must be based upon active unconstitutional behavior. Grinter v. Knight,

, 575–76 (6th Cir. 2008); Greene v. Barber,

(6th Cir. 2002). The acts of one’s subordinates are not enough, nor can supervisory liability be based upon the mere failure to act. Grinter,

; Greene,

; Summers v. Leis,

(6th Cir. 2004). Moreover, § 1983 liability may not be imposed simply because a supervisor denied an administrative grievance or failed to act based upon information contained in a grievance. See Shehee v. Luttrell,

(6th Cir. 1999). “[A] plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the

official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Iqbal,

. The Sixth Circuit has summarized the minimum required to constitute active conduct by a supervisory official:

Congress has expressly abrogated Eleventh Amendment immunity by statute. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman,

, 98–101 (1984); Alabama v. Pugh,

(1978); O’Hara v. Wigginton,

(6th Cir. 1994). Congress has not expressly abrogated Eleventh Amendment immunity by statute, Quern v. Jordan,

(1979), and the State of Michigan has not consented to civil rights suits in federal court. Abick v. Michigan,

(6th Cir. 1986). Therefore, any claims by Plaintiff against Defendant Schroeder in her official capacity for money damages would also be barred by sovereign immunity. “[A] supervisory official’s failure to supervise, control or train the offending individual is not actionable unless the supervisor either encouraged the specific incident of misconduct or in some other way directly participated in it.” Shehee,

(emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted). We have interpreted this standard to mean that “at a minimum,” the plaintiff must show that the defendant “at least implicitly authorized, approved, or knowingly acquiesced in the unconstitutional conduct of the offending officers.” Peatross v. City of Memphis,

(6th Cir. 2016) (quoting Shehee,

, and citing Phillips v. Roane Cnty.,

(6th Cir. 2008)); see also Copeland v. Machulis,

(6th Cir. 1995) (citing Rizzo v. Goode,

, 375–76 (1976), and Bellamy v. Bradley,

, 421 (6th Cir. 1984)); Walton v. City of Southfield,

(6th Cir. 1993); Leach v. Shelby Cnty. Sheriff,

(6th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff fails to allege any facts at all about the conduct of Defendant Schroeder. Plaintiff merely asserts in conclusory fashion that Defendant Schroeder knew of the danger posed by Prisoner King. However, Plaintiff fails to allege any facts in support of this assertion or showing that Defendant Schroeder acted or failed to act in a manner that violated the Constitution. Conclusory allegations of unconstitutional conduct without specific factual allegations fail to state a claim under § 1983. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678–79; Twombly,

. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendant Schroeder. B. Defendants Lakanen and Etelamaki As noted above, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants Lakanen and Etelamaki failed to protect him from Prisoner King in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment. Inmates have a constitutionally protected right to personal safety grounded in the Eighth Amendment. Farmer v. Brennan,

(1994). Thus, prison staff are obliged “to take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates” in their care. Hudson v. Palmer,

, 526–27 (1984). In particular, because officials have “stripped [prisoners] of virtually every means of self- protection[,]” “officials have a duty to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners.” Id. at 833. To establish liability under the Eighth Amendment for a claim based on a failure to prevent harm to a prisoner, a plaintiff must show that the prison official acted with “deliberate indifference” to a substantial risk of serious harm facing the plaintiff. Farmer,

; Helling v. McKinney,

(1993); Bishop v. Hackel,

, 766–67 (6th Cir. 2011); Curry v. Scott,

(6th Cir. 2001); Woods v. Lecureux,

(6th Cir. 1997); Street v. Corr. Corp. of Am.,

(6th Cir. 1996); Taylor v. Mich. Dep’t of Corr.

(6th Cir. 1995). Deliberate indifference is a higher standard than negligence and requires that “the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Farmer,

; see also Bishop, 636 F.3d at 766–67. The deliberate-indifference standard includes both objective and subjective components. Farmer,

; 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,

. Under the subjective prong, an official must “know[] of and disregard[] an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.”

. “[I]t is enough that the official acted or failed to act despite his knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm.”

. “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.”

. “[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.”

. In this case, Plaintiff makes a conclusory assertion that Defendants Lakanen and Etelamaki knew that Prisoner King was violent and dangerous, and states that Prisoner King walked past them carrying boiling liquid prior to assaulting Plaintiff. However, Plaintiff fails to allege facts showing that Defendants Lakanen and Etelamaki were aware of Prisoner King’s conduct in boiling an unknown substance in the unit microwave. Nor does Plaintiff allege that Defendants Lakanen

and Etelamaki actually saw Prisoner King with the boiling liquid or had any reason to believe that Prisoner King posed a danger to Plaintiff or to any other person prior to Prisoner King’s attack on Plaintiff. As noted above, conclusory allegations of unconstitutional conduct without specific factual allegations fail to state a claim under § 1983. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678–79; Twombly,

. Because Plaintiff fails to allege facts showing that Defendants Lakanen and Etelamaki acted or failed to act with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm to Plaintiff, he fails to state an Eighth Amendment claim against them. Conclusion Having conducted the review required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Court determines that Plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, under

(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). The Court must next decide whether an appeal of this action would be in good faith within the meaning of

(a)(3). See McGore v. Wrigglesworth,

(6th Cir. 1997). Although the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s claims are properly dismissed, the Court does not conclude that any issue Plaintiff might raise on appeal would be frivolous. Coppedge v. United States,

(1962). Accordingly, the Court does not certify that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. Should Plaintiff appeal this decision, the Court will assess the $605.00 appellate filing fee pursuant to § 1915(b)(1), see McGore,

, unless Plaintiff is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis, e.g., by the “three-strikes” rule of § 1915(g). If he is barred, he will be required to pay the $605.00 appellate filing fee in one lump sum. This is a dismissal as described by

(g). A judgment consistent with this opinion will be entered.

Dated: December 23, 2024 /s/ Ray Kent Ray Kent United States Magistrate Judge