Clay #413516 v. Deboer et al, No. 1:2015cv00880 - Document 6 (W.D. Mich. 2015)
Court Description: OPINION; signed by District Judge Paul L. Maloney (Judge Paul L. Maloney, cmc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Clay &#035;413516 v. Deboer et al Doc. 6 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JOHN CLAY, JR., Plaintiff, Case No. 1:15-cv-880 v. Honorable Paul L. Maloney WILLIAM DEBOER et al., Defendants. ____________________________________/ OPINION This is a civil rights action brought 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. 104134, 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). 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 John Clay, Jr., is a parolee under the supervision of the Michigan Department of Corrections. He currently resides at the KPEP facility in Benton Harbor, Michigan. Defendants are: Dockets.Justia.com William A. DeBoer, the President of KPEP; Robyn Sherrick, a program manager at KPEP; and Nancy Wasso, a parole supervisor. According to the complaint, on March 31, 2015, Plaintiff was granted conditional release on parole. Although the allegations are not entirely clear, it appears that Plaintiff’s release was contingent upon his participation in sex-offender treatment. He was initially taken to an “outpatient” treatment program in Benton Harbor, Michigan, but unidentified “administrators” decided that Plaintiff should be placed in the residential treatment program at KPEP instead. (Id. at Page ID#3.) Plaintiff contends that the reasons for referring him to KPEP were “vague and inconsistent with the facts (scores, risk assessments, vasor, compas, recidivism, static 99R, risk category).” (Id. at Page ID#3.) In addition, Plaintiff complains that, since he arrived at KPEP, he has been found guilty of “misconduct” and/or “program rule violations.” (Id. at Page ID#4.) However, Plaintiff contends that there was “no supporting evidence for the charges[.]” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Wasso and Sherrick were responsible to provide a hearing examiner for an “alternative response” to the program rule violations, but apparently they did not provide one. (Id. at Page ID##4, ) Plaintiff contends that all Defendants intended to deprive him of his constitutional rights, such as his right to equal protection and due process, and were deliberately indifferent to a serious risk of harm caused by their actions. 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, 47 (1957)). While a complaint need not -2- 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- A. Equal Protection Plaintiff asserts that Defendants denied him equal protection. The Equal Protection Clause commands that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1. “To establish a claim for relief under the Equal Protection Clause, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the government treated the plaintiff disparately as compared to similarly situated persons and that such disparate treatment either burdens a fundamental right, targets a suspect class, or has no rational basis.” Club Italia Soccer & Sports Org., Inc. v. Charter Twp., 470 F.3d 286, 298 (6th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff’s allegations are wholly conclusory. He provides no facts from which to infer that he has been treated differently than other, similarly-situated individuals. Thus, he does not state an equal protection claim. B. Due Process Plaintiff alleges that he received one or more program rule violations without sufficient evidence of guilt. He also contends that he was referred to an inpatient treatment program without adequate justification. The elements of a procedural due process claim are: (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). 1. Program rule violations In Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481-84 (1972), the Supreme Court held that individuals threatened with the revocation of their parole possess a liberty interest that entitles them to minimal due process protections. In defining those minimal due process protections, the Supreme Court recognized two important stages in the parole revocation process: the preliminary hearing and the -4- revocation hearing. Id. at 485. The Court stated that a preliminary hearing should be held promptly after the alleged parole violation or arrest to determine whether probable cause exists to hold the parolee for a revocation hearing. Id. at 485–87. If probable cause is found to exist, the parolee has a right to a hearing prior to a final decision on revocation by the state parole authority. Id. at 487-88. The minimal due process requirements at the revocation hearing stage include: (a) written notice of the claimed violations of parole; (b) disclosure to the parolee of evidence against him; (c) opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; (d) the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses (unless the hearing officer specifically finds good cause for not allowing confrontation); (e) a ‘neutral and detached’ hearing body such as a traditional parole board, members of which need not be judicial officers or lawyers; and (f) a written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking parole. Id. at 489. Plaintiff does not allege that after receiving a program rule violation he was threatened with the revocation of his parole. Indeed, he does not allege that the program rule violations had any effect on him at all. A rule violation that did not have an alleged impact on Plaintiff does not implicate his right to due process. Consequently, Plaintiff fails to state a due process claim based on the alleged rule violations or misconduct. 2. Placement at KPEP. To the extent that Plaintiff’s due process claim is based on his referral to an inpatient program at KPEP, he does not state a claim because he does not allege that any of the named Defendants were involved in that decision. It is a basic pleading essential that a plaintiff attribute factual allegations to particular defendants. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 544 (holding that, in order to state a claim, a plaintiff must make sufficient allegations to give a defendant fair notice of the claim). Where a person is named as -5- a defendant to a claim without an allegation of specific conduct, the claim is subject to dismissal, even under the liberal construction afforded to pro se complaints. See Gilmore v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 92 F. App’x 188, 190 (6th Cir. 2004) (dismissing complaint where plaintiff failed to allege how any named defendant was involved in the violation of his rights); 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. 90-1010, 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”). Even if Defendants had supervisory authority over the unidentified administrators responsible for the placement decision, Defendants cannot be held liable under § 1983 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, 575-76 (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 576; Greene, 310 F.3d at 899; Summers v. Leis, 368 F.3d 881, 888 (6th Cir. 2004). “[A] plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” -6- Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676. Plaintiff has not alleged that any of the named Defendants deprived him of a protected liberty or property interest. Thus, he does not state a due process claim against them. Moreover, Plaintiff does not state a claim because he has not alleged a deprivation of a protected liberty interest. Plaintiff does not have a liberty interest in the particular conditions of his parole. A prisoner has no constitutional or inherent right to be conditionally released before the expiration of a prison sentence. Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979). Although a state may establish a parole system, it has no duty to do so; thus, the presence of a parole system does not give rise to a constitutionally-protected liberty interest in parole release. Id. at 7, 11; Bd. of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369, 373 (1987). Rather, a liberty interest is present only if state law entitles an inmate to release on parole. Inmates of Orient Corr. Inst. v. Ohio State Adult Parole Auth., 929 F.2d 233, 235 (6th Cir. 1991). The Sixth Circuit repeatedly has recognized that Michigan has not created a liberty interest in parole. See Sweeton v. Brown, 27 F.3d 1162, 1164-65 (6th Cir. 1994) (en banc); see also Ward v. Stegall, 93 F. App’x 805, 806 (6th Cir. 2004). Because Petitioner has no liberty interest in parole, it follows that he has no interest in any particular condition of that parole, such as placement in an outpatient treatment program. Absent a protected interest, he does not state a due process claim. C. Eighth Amendment Plaintiff also contends that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to a “substantial risk of serious harm” resulting from their conduct, citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994). (See Compl. at Page ID#7.) 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 -7- 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). In order to prevail on an Eighth Amendment claim, Plaintiff 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, 511 U.S. at 834 (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)). As with his other claims, Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim is unsupported by allegations of fact. Indeed, he does not identify the harm that Defendants allegedly subjected him to. His conclusory allegations do not suffice to state an Eighth Amendment claim. -8- 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. § 1915(e)(2). The Court must next decide whether an appeal of this action would be in good faith within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 611 (6th Cir. 1997). For the same reasons that the Court dismisses the action, the Court discerns no good-faith basis for an appeal. Should Plaintiff appeal this decision, the Court will assess the $505.00 appellate filing fee pursuant to § 1915(b)(1), see McGore, 114 F.3d at 610-11. A Judgment consistent with this Opinion will be entered. Dated: September 21, 2015 /s/ Paul L. Maloney Paul L. Maloney United States District Judge -9-
]]>
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.
