Pugh 492273 v. Gehuski
1:14-cv-00525
W.D. Mich.Jun 19, 2014Background
- Plaintiff Terrance Pugh, an MDOC prisoner, sued DRF staff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference after being placed with a violent cellmate despite medical "bottom bunk" and "no more than 3 stairs" details.
- Pugh repeatedly requested transfer to Unit 500 (handicap unit); ARUSs Gehuski and Hessbrook and RUM Dunigan denied or ignored his requests; Dunigan denied his grievance at Step I.
- The cellmate, Charles Jones, had a history of violent disciplinary infractions and threatened to stab Pugh; an altercation occurred in February 2014 in which both men fought.
- Pugh alleges defendants’ refusal to move him exposed him to a substantial risk of serious harm; he seeks compensatory and punitive damages.
- The court screened the complaint under the PLRA and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A. It dismissed Warden Stoddard and Deputy Warden Fenby for failure to state a claim and ordered service on Dunigan, Hessbrook, and Gehuski.
- Pugh’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief was denied: court found low likelihood of success, lack of irreparable harm (Pugh had been transferred), and deference to prison administration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether supervisory defendants (Stoddard, Fenby) are liable for deliberate indifference by subordinates | Supervisors failed to properly supervise or remedy grievance, leading to risk of harm | Liability cannot be premised on respondeat superior or mere grievance denial | Dismissed for failure to state a claim; no plausible allegations of supervisors’ own unconstitutional acts |
| Whether ARUSs/RUM (Gehuski, Hessbrook, Dunigan) may be liable for Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference | They ignored repeated requests to move plaintiff despite known medical details and threats from cellmate | Decisions about housing and transfers reflect penological judgment; dispute over what plaintiff requested (transfer vs. protection) | Allegations against these three are sufficient to survive screening and warrant service |
| Whether preliminary injunctive relief was warranted | Pugh sought transfer/protection to avoid ongoing risk | Defendants argued that Pugh was no longer at risk (he was transferred) and court deference to prison officials | Motion denied: low likelihood of success, no irreparable harm, public interest/prison administration weigh against injunction |
| Pleading standard for prisoner § 1983 claims at screening | Pugh contends facts show deliberate indifference and risk | Defendants rely on Twombly/Iqbal plausibility and that grievance/transfer denials insufficient for liability | Court applied Twombly/Iqbal; screened complaint: dismissed some defendants, served others based on adequacy of factual allegations |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (supervisory liability requires own unconstitutional conduct)
- Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal/supervisory liability limits)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (§ 1983 requires state action)
- Shehee v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295 (denial of grievance alone insufficient for § 1983 liability)
- Grinter v. Knight, 532 F.3d 567 (supervisory liability requires active unconstitutional behavior)
- Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468 (Twombly/Iqbal apply to prisoner initial review dismissals)