Moore v. Warren
2:13-cv-11831
E.D. Mich.Dec 24, 2013Background
- Plaintiff Shalecsha Moore, a Michigan state prisoner at Women's Huron Valley Correctional Facility, filed a pro se § 1983 claim alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
- Complaint named MDOC employees Warden Millicent Warren, Deputy Warden Jodi DeAngelo, Nurse Catherine Ozor, and Nurse Subrina Aikens; Dr. Pei (Prison Health Services) was also named but not part of the MDOC motion.
- The MDOC Defendants moved for summary judgment two months after the complaint and before discovery, arguing lack of personal involvement as to DeAngelo and seeking dismissal of the other MDOC defendants.
- In her summary-judgment response, Moore added factual allegations (referring to a daily log book) suggesting DeAngelo observed her in pain and failed to act; those factual assertions were not in the original complaint.
- Magistrate Judge Grand recommended granting summary judgment for Warren, Ozor, and Aikens, but denying as to DeAngelo and allowing Moore leave to amend her complaint based on the new allegations; DeAngelo objected, arguing the magistrate applied a dismissal (not summary judgment) analysis and Moore had not sought leave to amend.
- The district court reviewed DeAngelo’s objection de novo, adopted the R&R, dismissed Warren, Ozor, and Aikens, and denied summary judgment as to DeAngelo, permitting Moore to amend because the motion came before discovery and Rule 15(a)(2) favors liberal amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Moore may amend complaint to add factual allegations raised in her response to summary judgment | Moore argued the response-level allegations (supported by reference to a daily log book) show DeAngelo’s personal involvement and create a genuine dispute | DeAngelo argued Moore did not seek leave to amend and that unsupported allegations in a response cannot defeat a properly supported summary-judgment motion | Court allowed amendment and denied summary judgment as to DeAngelo, reasoning pro se status, Rule 15(a)(2), and that motion was filed before discovery; dismissed other MDOC defendants |
| Whether DeAngelo lacked the requisite personal involvement for § 1983 liability | Moore contended the log would show DeAngelo observed her pain and failed to act, satisfying personal involvement | Defendants argued the complaint lacked allegations tying DeAngelo to the delay and thus summary judgment should be granted | Court found a question of fact could exist based on Moore’s asserted evidence; denial without prejudice and leave to amend granted |
| Proper standard when new factual assertions appear in a response brief | Moore relied on her factual assertions and referenced documentary support (daily log) | Defendants argued the magistrate improperly treated the matter like a dismissal/pleading issue rather than requiring admissible summary-judgment evidence | Court explained unsupported response assertions generally are insufficient but allowed amendment because discovery had not occurred and defendants could have produced the log to contradict Moore |
| Whether R&R’s recommendation was procedurally acceptable given lack of formal motion to amend | Moore did not file a separate motion to amend | Defendants asserted the magistrate should not have sua sponte granted amendment absent a formal request | Court accepted magistrate’s approach given pro se status and Rule 15’s liberal standard, and adopted the R&R |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Halter, 131 F. Supp. 2d 942 (E.D. Mich. 2001) (standard for district court review of magistrate judge recommendations)
- Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373 (6th Cir. 1995) (objections to an R&R must be specific to preserve appellate review)
- Garvey v. Montgomery, [citation="128 F. App'x 453"] (6th Cir. 2005) (court may disregard unsupported, self-serving assertions in opposing summary judgment when no evidentiary support exists)