Juchartz #439574 v. Phillips et al, No. 1:2014cv00971 - Document 4 (W.D. Mich. 2014)

Court Description: OPINION; signed by Chief Judge Paul L. Maloney (Chief Judge Paul L. Maloney, cmc)

Download PDF
Juchartz #439574 v. Phillips et al Doc. 4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION WILLIAM FRANK JUCHARTZ , Plaintiff, Case No. 1:14-cv-971 v. Honorable Paul L. Maloney S.PHILLIPS et al., Defendants. ____________________________________/ OPINION This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, PUB. L. NO. 104-134, 110 STAT. 1321 (1996), 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 against Defendants Cooley and Choi. The Court will serve the complaint against Defendants S. Phillips and E. Phillips. Dockets.Justia.com Discussion I. Factual allegations Plaintiff presently is incarcerated at the Carson City Correctional Facility (DRF). Plaintiff sues the following DRF personnel: Dentists S. Phillips, E. Phillips, T. Cooley and J. Choi. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants S. Phillips and E. Phillips performed dental work, including removing 6 teeth and filling 4 cavities, that should not have been required had Defendants S. Phillips and E. Phillips not delayed providing Plaintiff with a routine dental examination and teeth cleaning. Plaintiff alleges that he waited nearly two years from the time he requested a routine dental examination and teeth cleaning until Defendants S. Phillips and E. Phillips attended to his dental needs. Plaintiff alleges that during this extended wait, he suffered stress, migraines, headaches loss of sleep and difficulty eating. Additionally, Defendants S. Phillips and E. Phillips refused to look at any of his teeth other than the teeth upon which they were working, telling Plaintiff he had to wait for his routine dental examination and teeth cleaning to have his other teeth examined. Once Plaintiff s teeth were removed, he waited 7 months to receive his upper dentures. Additionally, Plaintiff was informed that the upper dentures were for appearance only and that he would not be allowed to receive a bottom denture. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Cooley and Choi denied his grievances although they never examined or interviewed him. 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. -2- 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. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 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. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 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 § 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, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994). -3- Plaintiff fails to make specific factual allegations against Defendants Cooley or Choi, other than his claim that they failed to see or interview Plaintiff in connection with an investigation in response to his grievances. Government officials may not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior or vicarious liability. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676; Monell v. New York City Dep t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691(1978); Everson v. Leis, 556 F.3d 484, 495 (6th Cir. 2009). A claimed constitutional violation must be based upon active unconstitutional behavior. Grinter v. Knight, 532 F.3d 567, 575 (6th Cir. 2008); Greene v. Barber, 310 F.3d 889, 899 (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, 532 F.3d at 575; Greene, 310 F.3d at 899; Summers v. Leis, 368 F.3d 881, 888 (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, 199 F.3d 295, 300 (6th Cir. 1999). [A] plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676. Plaintiff has failed to allege that Defendants Cooley or Choi engaged in any active unconstitutional behavior. Accordingly, he fails to state a claim against them. At this juncture, Plaintiff s allegations are sufficient to warrant service of the complaint on Defendants S. Phillips and E. Phillips. Conclusion Having conducted the review required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Court determines that Defendants Cooley and Choi will be dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant -4- to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). The Court will serve the complaint against Defendants S. Phillips and E. Phillips. An Order consistent with this Opinion will be entered. Dated: October 2, 2014 /s/ Paul L. Maloney Paul L. Maloney Chief United States District Judge -5-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.