Opinion
Case No. 2:06-cv-11670.
May 30, 2006
ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL AND DIRECTING SERVICE
At a session of said Court, held in the U.S. District Courthouse, Eastern District of Michigan on May 30, 2006.
Plaintiff Everett Pounds, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the Mound Correctional Facility in Detroit, Michigan, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint for declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants are: (1) "the Mound Correctional Facility Medical Staff"; (2) Region III of the Bureau of Health Care Services; (3) Correctional Medical Services, Inc. ("CMS"); and (4) the Michigan Department of Corrections ("MDOC") (collectively "Defendants"). In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he was denied timely access to health care when he complained of an earache. The earache allegedly developed into an ear infection and partial loss of hearing. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' acts, omissions, and negligence amounted to deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs for this action. When screening an indigent prisoner's civil rights complaint against a governmental entity, officer, or employee, federal district courts must determine whether the complaint, or any portion of it, (1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted, or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Smith v. Campbell, 250 F.3d 1032, 1036 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A). A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1831-32 (1989). To successfully establish a prima facie case under Section 1983, the plaintiff must prove that the defendants acted under color of state law and deprived the plaintiff of rights secured by federal law. Block v. Ribar, 156 F.3d 673, 677 (6th Cir. 1998) (citing Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535, 101 S. Ct. 1908, 1913 (1981)).
Plaintiff's allegations against MDOC and its Bureau of Health Care Services fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because the Eleventh Amendment bars civil rights actions against a state and its departments and agencies unless the state has waived its immunity. Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66, 109 S. Ct. 2304, 2309 (1989). Eleventh Amendment immunity "is far reaching." Thiokol Corp. v. Dep't of Treasury, State of Mich., Revenue Div., 987 F.2d 376, 381 (6th Cir. 1993). "It bars all suits, whether for injunctive, declaratory or monetary relief, against the state and its departments." Id. (citing Pennhurst State Sch. Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100-01, 104 S. Ct. 900, 908 (1984)). Although the Eleventh Amendment only expressly prohibits suits against states by citizens of other states, the Supreme Court has long held that the amendment also bars suits by citizens of the state being sued. Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 10 S. Ct. 504 (1890). "The state of Michigan . . . has not consented to being sued in civil rights actions in the federal courts," Johnson v. Unknown Dellatifa, 357 F.3d 539, 545 (6th Cir. 2004), and Congress did not abrogate the states' sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment when it enacted Section 1983. Hutzell v. Sayre, 5 F.3d 996, 999 (6th Cir. 1993).
MDOC is "an administrative agency within the executive branch of Michigan's government." Hopkins v. Michigan Parole Bd., 237 Mich. App. 629, 636, 604 N.W.2d 686, 690 (1999). The Bureau of Health Care Services is an entity within MDOC and therefore also is entitled to immunity. See Fleming v. Martin, 24 Fed. Appx. 258, 259 (6th Cir. 2001) (upholding the district court's dismissal of the Michigan Parole Board based on Eleventh Amendment immunity, finding that it is an entity within MDOC, a state agency) (opinion attached as Exhibit 1). Thus, MDOC and its Bureau of Health Care Services will be dismissed with prejudice from this lawsuit.
Plaintiff names the "Mound Correctional Facility Medical Staff" as a defendant but he fails to name any particular doctor or nurse whom he seeks to hold liable or set forth any particular conduct by any member of the facility's medical staff. A plaintiff must allege with specificity his or her claims against government officials:
. . . damage claims against governmental officials alleged to arise from violations of constitutional rights cannot be founded upon conclusory, vague or general allegations, but must instead, allege facts that show the existence of the asserted constitutional rights violation recited in the complaint and what each defendant did to violate the asserted right . . . This court has adopted the requirement that a plaintiff allege "with particularity" all material facts to be relied upon when asserting that a governmental official has violated a constitutional right . . .Terrance v. Northville Reg'l Psychiatric Hosp., 286 F.3d 834, 842 (6th Cir. 2002) (emphasis in original) (internal citations omitted). The Court therefore finds Plaintiff's vague allegations against the entire medical staff at the Mound Correctional Facility insufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Moreover, Plaintiff states in his complaint that MDOC has brought in CMS to act as the health care provider at the Mound Correctional Facility. See Compl. ¶ 14. Thus it appears that any "medical staff" at the facility would be nurses or doctors working for CMS. This Court therefore will dismiss without prejudice the Mound Correctional Facility Medical Staff as a defendant.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has stated an arguable claim against CMS.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED, that Plaintiff's claims against the Michigan Department of Corrections and its Bureau of Health Care Services are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Plaintiff's claim against the Mound Correctional Facility Medical Staff is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the United States Marshal shall serve the appropriate papers on Correctional Medical Services, Inc., without prepayment of the costs for such service. The Marshal may collect the usual and customary costs from Plaintiff after effecting service;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Plaintiff shall serve a copy of all future documents on Correctional Medical Services, Inc. or on defense counsel, if legal counsel represents that defendant. Plaintiff shall attach to all original documents filed with the Clerk of the Court a certificate stating the date that Plaintiff mailed a copy of the original document to the defendant or to defense counsel. The Court will disregard any paper received by Plaintiff if the paper has not been filed with the Clerk or if it fails to include a certificate of service.