Bonner v. WASHINGTON
2:17-cv-11694
E.D. Mich.Aug 1, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Brian Bonner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a § 1983 civil-rights complaint alleging retaliation, threats, mail tampering, false misconduct reports, destroyed legal papers, and other misconduct by Michigan corrections and parole officials.
- Defendants originally named included MDOC Director Heidi Washington, numerous correctional officers at the Reception & Guidance Center (Shields, Lam, Webb, Coolbaugh, Dunlap, Stolark, Jones, Thompson, Taylor, Richardson, Scott, Owen, Brussow), parole or other officials (Romanowski, Szappan, Greene, Clark, Freshcorn, Nagy, VanLake, Risley, Johnson, Hunter, Cargor), and Michael S. Szappan.
- Bonner sought to add J. Niemiec and Sgt. Burns (Carson City CF) as defendants and to add Tiffany Tyler as a co-plaintiff; he also moved for appointment of counsel and a federal investigation.
- The magistrate/court screened the complaint under the PLRA standards (28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A) and evaluated whether factual allegations plausibly stated § 1983 claims.
- The Court found plausible claims against eight R&G Center officers (Shields, Lam, Webb, Coolbaugh, Dunlap, Stolark, Jones, Thompson) for threats to kill and causing fear, and against J. Niemiec and Sgt. Burns for mail tampering, failure to protect, and retaliatory misconduct reports.
- The Court dismissed Director Washington and a group of other named defendants for lack of specific allegations tying them to constitutional violations, denied addition of Tiffany Tyler, denied appointment of counsel (without prejudice as to a particular attorney), and ordered service on the remaining defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Director Washington is plausibly alleged to have conspired in retaliation | Washington conspired with a warden to subject Bonner to retaliation | Washington lacks specific factual allegations against her | Dismissed Washington for insufficient factual allegations (conclusory claim) |
| Whether R&G Center officers stated viable § 1983 claims (threats/retaliation/fear for life) | Shields, Lam, Webb, Coolbaugh, Dunlap, Stolark, Jones, Thompson threatened to plant weapons and have Bonner killed, causing fear | Defendants sought dismissal on screening standards (no detailed argument in record) | Court found these allegations plausible and ordered service on these officers |
| Whether J. Niemiec and Sgt. Burns should be added/are properly alleged defendants | Niemiec tampered with mail, denied visits/protection, retaliated; Burns filed retaliatory misconduct reports | No developed defense at screening | Motion to add Niemiec and Burns granted; claims allowed to proceed against them |
| Whether numerous other named defendants should remain in suit (Romanowski, Szappan, Taylor, Richardson, Scott, Greene, Clark, Freshcorn, Nagy, VanLake, Risley, Johnson, Hunter, Owen, Cargor, Brussow) | Bonner referenced many alleged wrongs but did not plead specific acts by these individuals related to the core claims | These defendants lack specific allegations tying them to the asserted constitutional violations | Dismissed these defendants under 28 U.S.C. §§1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A and Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 as unrelated/unsupported claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Flanory v. Bonn, 604 F.3d 249 (6th Cir. 2010) (PLRA screening standards for prisoner complaints)
- Smith v. Campbell, 250 F.3d 1032 (6th Cir. 2001) (prisoner PLRA screening authority)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (frivolous-complaint standard under § 1915)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (pleading requirements and exhaustion issues under § 1983)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (application of the Twombly plausibility standard)
- Robertson v. Lucas, 753 F.3d 606 (6th Cir. 2014) (elements of a § 1983 claim)
- Terrance v. Northville Reg’l Psychiatric Hosp., 286 F.3d 834 (6th Cir. 2002) (need for nonconclusory allegations against officials)
- Harbin Bey v. Rutter, 420 F.3d 571 (6th Cir. 2005) (retaliation claims require facts supporting retaliatory motive)
- Gutierrez v. Lynch, 826 F.2d 1534 (conclusory allegations insufficient to plead conspiracy)
- George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2007) (unrelated claims against different defendants should not be joined in one suit)