Askew 248480 v. Berrien, County of, 1:24-cv-01010

Corey A. Askew, a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning his conditions at Berrien County Jail (BCJ) as a pretrial detainee from March 2022 to January 2023.
Askew alleged he was denied basic necessities, subjected to excessive force while being forced to submit fingerprints/mugshots, denied medical and mental health care, and exposed to humiliating conditions (strip searches, lack of privacy, etc.), largely because he refused to provide fingerprints and mugshots.
Defendants named include Berrien County, various jail staff, and unknown parties; Askew's claims included violations of U.S. constitutional provisions, international human rights documents, and requests for both damages and declaratory relief.
The court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), dismissing claims that failed to state a claim or target immune parties.
Claims based on non-self-executing international declarations, the Supremacy Clause, and the Eighth Amendment were dismissed; Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims for damages continued against certain defendants.
The court granted Askew indigent status for service of process but denied his request for free copies of local court rules.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can claims be brought under international human rights documents (e.g., UDHR, UN Declarations)?	Askew argued these create enforceable rights/cause of action.	Not officially argued, but court holds these are not enforceable in U.S. courts.	No private cause of action; claims dismissed.
Are declaratory claims moot after plaintiff's transfer from the facility?	Sought ongoing declaratory relief against jail officials.	Not addressed, but court relies on mootness doctrine.	Moot as plaintiff is no longer at BCJ; claims dismissed.
Can Askew state Eighth Amendment claims as a pretrial detainee?	Alleges cruel and unusual punishment via conditions and force.	Not addressed, but court explains Eighth Amendment does not apply to pretrial detainees.	No; must proceed under Fourteenth Amendment.
Did Askew plead sufficient facts against certain defendants (Rankin, Carl, O'Brien, Unknowns)?	Asserts collective or supervisory liability.	Not addressed; court applies individual liability standard.	No; lack of specific facts means claims dismissed.
Are claims under Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments (for conditions, force, denial of care) sufficient?	Details specific acts amounting to constitutional violations.	Not addressed on merits at this stage.	Yes; claims proceed for damages against named officials and county.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (lays out pleading standard for constitutional claims; no vicarious liability for supervisors)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (establishes plausibility requirement for pleadings)
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se complaints are to be liberally construed)
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (definition of action under § 1983)
Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 566 U.S. 318 (2012) (strip searches of detainees do not require individualized suspicion)
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (pretrial detainees cannot be punished before conviction, and sets standard for conditions of confinement)
Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires policy or custom)