Schmid v. Hofbauer

Full title: MARK SCHMID #227643, Plaintiff, v. JERRY HOFBAUER, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Northern Division

Date published: Jul 18, 2006

Case No. 2:06-cv-170 (W.D. Mich. Jul. 18, 2006)

Opinion

Case No. 2:06-cv-170.

July 18, 2006

OPINION

ROBERT BELL, Chief District Judge

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, and Plaintiff has paid the initial partial filing fee. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, PUB. L. NO. 104-134, 110 STAT. 1321 (1996) ("PLRA"), 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. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c); 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A. The court must read Plaintiff's pro se complaint indulgently, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S. Ct. 594, 595 (1972), and accept Plaintiff's allegations as true, unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33, 112 S. Ct. 1728, 1733 (1992). Applying these standards, the court will dismiss Plaintiff's complaint, in part, for failure to state a claim.

Discussion

I. Factual Allegations

Plaintiff Mark Schmid, an inmate at the Marquette Branch Prison (MBP), filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Warden Jerry Hofbauer. Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that he is confined to the infirmary at MBP until he leaves prison on October 12, 2007. Defendant Hofbauer has disallowed Plaintiff from going outside for yard. Plaintiff seeks "emotional damages" and equitable relief.

II. Failure to state a claim

A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted when it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations of the complaint. Jones v. City of Carlisle, 3 F.3d 945, 947 (6th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1177, 114 S. Ct. 1218 (1994). 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, 108 S. Ct. 2250, 2255 (1988); Street v. Corrections Corp. of America, 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, 114 S. Ct. 807, 811 (1994).

The court notes that Plaintiff's claim for damages is barred by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). Section § 1997e(e) provides as follows:

No federal action may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or other correctional facility, for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury.

Id. The Sixth Circuit repeatedly has held, albeit in unpublished decisions, that Eighth Amendment claims for monetary relief based on mental or emotional injury are precluded by § 1997e(e) absent a showing of physical injury. See, e.g., Merchant v. Hawk-Sawyer, No. 01-6244, 2002 WL 927026, at *2 (6th Cir. May 7, 2002); Garrison v. Walters, No. 00-1662, 2001 WL 1006271, at *2 (6th Cir. Aug. 24, 2001); Robinson v. Corrections Corp. of America, No. 99-5741, 2001 WL 857204, at *1 (6th Cir. June 20, 2001); Oliver v. Sundquist, No. 00-6372, 2001 WL 669994, at *2 (6th Cir. June 7, 2001); Williams v. Ollis, Nos. 99-2168, 99-2234, 2000 WL 1434459 (6th Cir. Sept. 2000); Raines-Bey v. Garber, No. 99-1471, 2000 WL 658721, at *1 (6th Cir. May 12, 2000). Plaintiff has not alleged any physical injury as a result of his loss of yard. Therefore, his claim for damages is properly dismissed.

With regard to Plaintiff's claim for equitable relief, the court notes that Eighth Amendment standards entitle prisoners to exercise sufficient to maintain reasonably good physical and mental health. See Walker v. Mintzes, 771 F.2d 920-927 (6th Cir. 1985). Consequently, Plaintiff's claim that he is to be totally deprived of yard for the next year without penological justification is nonfrivolous and may not be dismissed upon initial review.

Conclusion

Having conducted the review now required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the court determines that Plaintiff's action will be dismissed, in part, for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1015(e)(2), 1915A(b); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c).

An order consistent with this opinion will be entered.