Alger v. McDowell
4:19-cv-12889
E.D. Mich.Dec 27, 2021Background:
- Pro se prisoner Joshua L. Alger, Sr. sued multiple MDOC employees in 2019 alleging conspiracies, retaliation, due-process violations related to misconduct tickets/transfers, denial of medical and mental-health care, denial of legal access, and related claims spanning several Michigan facilities.
- District Judge Edmunds previously screened and dismissed many claims and defendants, leaving a subset; Alger then filed an amended complaint adding defendants and allegations.
- MDOC defendants moved to transfer venue to the Western District (or sever) arguing most remaining defendants are Western District employees; the magistrate considered that motion after the amended complaint was filed.
- The magistrate screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A, applying Twombly/Iqbal pleading standards and governing Eighth Amendment and First Amendment tests.
- The magistrate recommends dismissing all conspiracy claims as conclusory and dismissing a list of named defendants for failure to state a claim or because of immunity; recommends denying MDOC’s transfer/sever motion without prejudice due to altered posture after amendment.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of §1983 conspiracy claims | Alger alleges multiple conspiracies linking defendants across facilities to retaliate and harm him | Defendants argue allegations are conclusory and lack specific agreement or overt acts | Conspiracy claims dismissed as speculative and insufficiently particularized |
| Sufficiency of pleadings as to specific defendants (Bridges, Leach, Patrick, Stephenson, Golson, etc.) | Alger contends these actors took adverse actions (denied visits, delayed legal property, released to hostile units, etc.) | Defendants argue facts are too vague to show injury, causation, or constitutional deprivation | Claims against these defendants dismissed for failing minimal pleading requirements |
| Immunity of hearing officers (O’Brien, Theut) | Alger claims biased or improper misconduct hearings | Defendants invoke absolute judicial/immunity for prison hearing officers acting in judicial capacity | O’Brien and Theut dismissed on immunity grounds (O’Brien absolutely immune; Theut no allegations) |
| Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to mental-health/medical needs | Alger alleges inadequate suicide-observation conditions and improper RTP discharge | Defendants contend Alger fails to plead a sufficiently serious medical need and subjective knowledge/indifference by named officials | Claims dismissed for failure to plead objective and subjective elements of deliberate indifference |
| Motion to transfer venue / sever claims | Alger opposes transfer, argues amended complaint connects Eastern and Western defendants | MDOC contends most remaining defendants are Western District employees and urges transfer or severance | Motion to transfer/sever denied without prejudice because amendment changed posture and exhaustion/severance not ripe |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading requires factual plausibility)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard and plausibility analysis)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (deliberate indifference test requires subjective awareness)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs)
- Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378 (elements for First Amendment retaliation claim)
- Revis v. Meldrum, 489 F.3d 273 (civil conspiracy standards under §1983)
- Robertson v. Lucas, 753 F.3d 606 (conspiracy proof requirements)
- Shehee v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295 (limits on liability for grievance-denying/supervisory officials)
- Peatross v. City of Memphis, 818 F.3d 233 (supervisory liability requires active unconstitutional behavior)
- Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413 (access-to-courts claim requires showing prejudice to litigation)