Johnson v. Kent, County of et al, No. 1:2012cv00935 - Document 8 (W.D. Mich. 2012)
Court Description: OPINION ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DOUGLAS T. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:12-cv-935 v. Honorable Robert J. Jonker COUNTY OF KENT et al., Defendants. ____________________________________/ OPINION This is a civil rights action brought by a county prisoner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has paid the civil action filing fee. 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. § 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, Plaintiff s action will be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Factual Allegations Plaintiff Douglas T. Johnson presently is detained at the Kent County Correctional Facility. He sues the County of Kent, the Kent County Sheriff s Department, and an unknown health care provider. Plaintiff alleges that he was detained at the Kent County Correctional Facility on August 14, 2012. At the time he was booked, he told unidentified officers that he had multiple sclerosis. Plaintiff was asked to list the names of his health care providers, the medications he was taking and the pharmacy he used. Plaintiff provided the requested information, and he believes that the jail contacted the pharmacy. On August 27, 2012, Plaintiff received one of his prescribed medications, Avonex, but he claims that the medication was not kept refrigerated and was therefore unsafe to use. He did not receive other unspecified medications. Plaintiff therefore asserts that Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. As a result of Defendants failure to provide necessary medication, Plaintiff allegedly experienced severe and painful muscle spasms, lower extremity pain, numbness, blurred vision, weight loss, and sleep deprivation. Plaintiff also alleges that, as a result of the stress, his wife has experienced repeated seizures, which he has witnessed. He seeks injunctive relief and compensatory damages. Discussion I. 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, 45-46 (1957)). -2- 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); Dominguez v. Corr. Med. Servs., 555 F.3d 543, 549 (6th Cir. 2009). 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 sues the Kent County Sheriff Department. The sheriff department does not exist as a separate legal entity; it is simply an agent of the county. Vine v. Cnty. of Ingham, 884 F. Supp. 1153, 1158 (W.D. Mich. 1995) (citing Hughson v. Cnty. of Antrim, 707 F. Supp. 304, 306 (W.D. Mich. 1988) and Bayer v. Almstadt, 185 N.W.2d 40, 44 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970)). Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the Berrien County Sheriff Department. Plaintiff also sues Kent County. His allegations essentially rest on the theory that the county is vicariously liable for the actions of an unnamed health care provider employed by the county. Kent County may not be held vicariously liable for the actions of its employees under § 1983. See Connick v. Thompson, 131 S. Ct. 1350, 1359 (2011); City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 392 (1989); Monell v. Dep t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). Instead, a county is liable only when its official policy or custom causes the injury. To the extent that Plaintiff suggests the existence of a custom of unlawful deprivation of medical attention, his allegations fall far short of supporting such a claim. As the Supreme Court has instructed, to demonstrate that a municipality had an unlawful custom, a plaintiff must allege and show that the municipality was deliberately indifferent to practices so persistent and widespread as to practically have the force of law. Connick, 131 S. Ct. at 1359. Plaintiff cites no prior incidents demonstrating a widespread pattern. He merely implies that such a pattern exists. Conclusory allegations of unconstitutional conduct without specific factual allegations fail to state a claim under § 1983. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (2007). Plaintiff therefore fails to state a claim against Kent County. As his final Defendant, Plaintiff names an unknown health care provider. It is a basic pleading essential that a plaintiff attribute factual allegations to particular defendants. See Twombly, -4- 550 U.S. at 544 (holding that, in order to state a claim, Plaintiff must make sufficient allegations to give a defendant fair notice of the claim). Where a person is named as a defendant without an allegation of specific conduct, the complaint is subject to dismissal, even under the liberal construction afforded to pro se complaints. See Frazier v. Michigan, 41 F. App x 762, 764 (6th Cir. 2002) (dismissing Plaintiff s claims where the complaint did not allege with any degree of specificity which of the named defendants were personally involved in or responsible for each alleged violation of rights); Griffin v. Montgomery, No. 00-3402, 2000 WL 1800569, at *2 (6th Cir. Nov. 30, 2000) (requiring allegations of personal involvement against each defendant)); Rodriguez v. Jabe, No. 901010, 1990 WL 82722, at *1 (6th Cir. June 19, 1990) ( Plaintiff s claims against those individuals are without a basis in law as the complaint is totally devoid of allegations as to them which would suggest their involvement in the events leading to his injuries. ). Plaintiff fails entirely to allege any fact about any specific individual, much less that any individual was both aware of Plaintiff s serious medical need for treatment and deliberately failed to provide that treatment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 102, 103-04 (1976) (to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (the deliberate-indifference standard has both an objective and a subjective component). Plaintiff s allegations therefore fall far short of the minimal pleading standards under FED. R. CIV. P. 8 (requiring a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief ). -5- Conclusion Having conducted the review required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Court determines that Plaintiff s action will be dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). This is a dismissal as described by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). A Judgment consistent with this Opinion will be entered. Dated: October 3, 2012 /s/ Robert J. Jonker ROBERT J. JONKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -6-
]]>
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.
