Opinion
20-13361
05-26-2021
DORIAN TREVOR SYKES, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF GENESEE, CORIZON HEALTH CORPORATION, and TAQUANA SCALES, Defendants.
Bernard A. Friedman United States District Judge.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 52) AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 53)
Curtis Ivy, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff Dorian Trevor Sykes filed this prisoner civil rights suit on December 1, 2020, without the assistance of counsel. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment and motion for leave to file a motion for summary judgment on April 21, 2021. (ECF Nos. 52, 53). This matter was referred to the undersigned for all pretrial proceedings. (ECF No. 28).
For the reasons discussed below, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a motion for summary be denied and the motion for summary judgment be denied without prejudice.
II. AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on March 15, 2021, with leave of the Court. (ECF No. 35, 41). Pursuant to the second amended complaint, Plaintiff's claims stem from an allegation defendant Taquana Scales sexually assaulted him on numerous occasions while he was housed at the Genesee County Jail from June 8, 2020 to September 2, 2020. According to Plaintiff, Defendant Scales, was employed by Defendant Corizon Health Corporation as a licensed practical nurse and stationed there. (ECF No. 35, PageID.183).
On June 8, 2020, then a federal detainee, Plaintiff was transferred to the Genesee County Jail. The purpose of the transfer was to allow Plaintiff to receive mental health treatment for his chronic depression and bipolar disorder. Upon his arrival at the jail, he was placed on suicide prevention watch. (Id.). Nevertheless, Plaintiff asserts while at the Genesee County Jail, Defendant Scales would improperly request a corrections officer to bring him to the medical exam room where she would “sexually exploit[] and sexually assault[]” Plaintiff. Specifically, Plaintiff maintains Scales failed to follow proper procedure by fabricating a basis for a corrections officer to escort him to medical examinations (Id.). While there, Plaintiff contends Scales assaulted him numerous times between June and August 2020. According to Plaintiff, Scales admitted to sexually assaulting him and was subsequently charged with criminal sexual conduct in Genesee County. (Id. at PageID.184).
Plaintiff alleges he reported the assaults to his mental health counselor, non-defendant Julie Rexroth. In response to Plaintiff reporting the allegations of misconduct, Ms. Rexroth advised Plaintiff to take his medication. Plaintiff also reported the assaults to non-defendant Dr. McCarthy, who also did not offer help. In July 2020, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant Corizon Health Corporation (“Corizon”) corporate headquarters. Corizon did not respond to the letter. (Id.).
Plaintiff sued Genesee County for having a “‘practice' of not supervising inmates while they're with medical staff.” (Id. at PageID.185). He also sued the County on an “inaction theory.” He sued Corizon for “allow[ing] a ‘practice' that is directly linked to Plaintiff being sexually assaulted[, ]” namely, permitting night nursing staff to draft handwritten lists of inmates needed to be seen. (Id. at PageID.190). He sued Scales for the sexual assaults which caused physical pain and emotional distress.
III. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On February 26, 2021, Plaintiff filed his first motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 21). At that time, none of the defendants had been served with the complaint. The Court denied that motion without prejudice as premature. (ECF No. 40). In the Report and Recommendation, the undersigned explained that the Court cannot grant summary judgment against a party who has not been served. The Court further explained summary judgment is improper if the non-movant has not yet had an opportunity to conduct discovery. (ECF No. 30, PageID.155) (citing White's Landing Fisheries, Inc. v. Buchholzer, 29 F.3d 229, 231-32 (6th Cir. 1994).
Plaintiff now seeks leave to file a motion for summary judgment because Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 “allows a party to move for summary judgment at any time.” (ECF No. 53, PageID.285). At this time, only defendants Genesee County and Corizon Health Corporation (“Corizon”) have been served; defendant Taquana Scales has not yet been served.
Defendants Genesee County and Corizon filed a response to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. In their response, they ask that the motion be denied as premature because they have not obtained discovery sufficient to respond to the motion. (ECF Nos. 61, 63).
Plaintiff's second motion for summary judgment is premature. As noted, defendant Scales has not yet been served. Further, there has been no opportunity for the defendants to conduct discovery. “Before ruling on summary judgment motions, a district judge must afford the parties adequate time for discovery, in light of the circumstances of the case.” Plott v. Gen. Motors Corp., Packard Elec. Div., 71 F.3d 1190, 1195 (6th Cir. 1995). Summary judgment motions “filed before the close of discovery [are] often denied as premature in [the Sixth C]ircuit, either on the opposing party's Rule 56(f) affidavit and request or on the [C]ourt's own initiative without an explicit request from the opposing party.” CLT Logistics v. River W. Brands, 777 F.Supp.2d 1052, 1076 (E.D. Mich. 2011) (quoting Wells v. Corp. Accounts Receivable, 683 F.Supp.2d 600, 602 (W.D. Mich. 2010)) (emphasis in original); see also Harris v. Jiangsu ASG Earth Environmental Protection Science and Tech. Co., Ltd., 2014 WL 4661953, at *2-3 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 18, 2014) (collecting cases).
In light of the foregoing, the Court should deny Plaintiff leave to file a motion for summary judgment at this juncture and deny without prejudice his second motion for summary judgment.
IV. RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 53) be DENIED. The undersigned further RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's second Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 52) be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as prematurely filed.
The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and Recommendation, but are required to file any objections within 14 days of service, as provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and Local Rule 72.1(d). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1981). Filing objections that raise some issues but fail to raise others with specificity will not preserve all the objections a party might have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(d)(2), any objections must be served on this Magistrate Judge.
Any objections must be labeled as “Objection No. 1, ” “Objection No. 2, ” etc. Any objection must recite precisely the provision of this Report and Recommendation to which it pertains. Not later than 14 days after service of an objection, the opposing party may file a concise response proportionate to the objections in length and complexity. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2), Local Rule 72.1(d).
The response must specifically address each issue raised in the objections, in the same order, and labeled as “Response to Objection No. 1, ” “Response to Objection No. 2, ” etc. If the Court determines that any objections are without merit, it may rule without awaiting the response.