From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Manizak v. Kelley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
May 8, 2013
No. 13-10346 (E.D. Mich. May. 8, 2013)

Opinion

No. 13-10346

05-08-2013

PAUL R. MANIZAK, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW KELLEY, ET AL., Defendants.


District Judge George Caram Steeh

Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen


ORDER

This is a pro se prisoner civil rights case brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff Paul Manizak is an inmate in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections. He has filed a motion to amend his complaint [Doc. #18] so as to clarify that because he was a pretrial detainee at the time his claim of deliberate indifference to his serious medical condition accrued, that claim is based on the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Eighth Amendment.

Under the Fourteenth Amendment, pretrial detainees have a right to medical treatment that is analogous to the right of prisoners under the Eighth Amendment. Bruederle v. Louisville Metro Gov't, 687 F.3d 771, 776 (6th Cir .2012). The standard under either constitutional provision is "deliberate indifference." Harris v. City of Circleville, 583 F.3d 356, 367 (6th Cir.2009).

Because Plaintiff has now identified the correct constitutional provision, his motion to amend [Doc. #18], which is more akin to a clarification, is GRANTED.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint by right on February 21, 2013 [Doc. #7], that adds certain Defendants and deals primarily with issues relating to his arrest and conviction. This amended complaint does not address deliberate indifference to his medical condition. While an amended complaint typically supercedes a previously filed complaint, the Court will in this case give the Plaintiff some latitude, given that he is a pro se prison inmate, and consider that the original complaint [Doc. #1] is still operative as to the deliberate indifference claims. See Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 712 (6th Cir. 2004), citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972); Herron v. Harrison, 203 F.3d 410, 414 (6th Cir. 2000) (pro se pleadings are held to "an especially liberal standard"); Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(f) ("All pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice").

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_______________

R. STEVEN WHALEN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record on May 8, 2013. electronically and/or by U.S. mail.

Mchael Williams

Relief Case Manager for the Honorable

R. Steven Whalen


Summaries of

Manizak v. Kelley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
May 8, 2013
No. 13-10346 (E.D. Mich. May. 8, 2013)
Case details for

Manizak v. Kelley

Case Details

Full title:PAUL R. MANIZAK, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW KELLEY, ET AL., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: May 8, 2013

Citations

No. 13-10346 (E.D. Mich. May. 8, 2013)