Smith 619752 v. Davids, 1:19-cv-00402

Background

Plaintiff Ashton A. Smith, a Michigan state prisoner, alleges that between July 26 and August 15, 2018 RMI nurses (Spear and Leland) and others refused to provide or refer him for treatment for an increasingly severe right-eye infection because he would not apologize to a nurse (Page) after a verbal dispute and misconduct charges.
Plaintiff had a history of corneal transplants and informed medical staff that an infection could lead to partial or total blindness; he repeatedly requested care while symptoms progressed to an emergency and eventual near-blindness in the right eye.
After prolonged refusal of on-site care, a supervisor ordered healthcare to assess him; a physician sent him to the University of Michigan where Dr. Hood diagnosed a corneal ulcer from an untreated infection and provided intensive antibiotic treatment and hospitalization.
Plaintiff alleges Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference by nurses Spear and Leland and state-law medical malpractice/gross negligence; he sued RMI Warden John Davids, MDOC Director Heidi Washington, Corizon Health, Inc., and Nurses Spear and Leland under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The court conducted initial review under the PLRA and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c).
The court dismissed claims against Davids, Washington, and Corizon for failure to state a claim; it allowed Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims to proceed against Spear and Leland.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Warden Davids and Director Washington are liable under § 1983 for failing to provide care	Smith alleges supervisory liability for denial of medical care	Davids/Washington lack personal involvement; liability cannot rest on respondeat superior	Dismissed for failure to state a claim — no specific allegations of their personal unconstitutional acts
Whether Corizon (contract medical provider) is liable under § 1983	Smith seeks to hold Corizon responsible for staff denials of care	Corizon cannot be liable on respondeat superior theory; plaintiff must plead an unconstitutional policy or custom	Dismissed for failure to state a claim — no allegations showing a policy or custom caused injury
Whether nurses Spear and Leland were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment	Smith alleges nurses refused treatment and conditioned care on an apology despite obvious, escalating eye emergency and his history of corneal transplants	Implied defense: staff discretion or lack of deliberate intent (not fully developed at initial review)	Allowed to proceed — facts plausibly state an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim
Whether plaintiff stated state-law medical malpractice/gross negligence claim under Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1407(2)	Smith alleges gross negligence/medical malpractice from denial of care causing near-blindness and hospitalization	Not squarely addressed in detail on initial review	The opinion dismisses some defendants on § 1983 grounds; malpractice claim not resolved in this opinion (focus was § 1983 initial review)

Key Cases Cited

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se complaints must be read liberally)
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992) (court may dismiss frivolous claims despite pro se status)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (each government-official defendant must be alleged to have engaged in individual unconstitutional conduct)
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 102 (1976) (Eighth Amendment requires adequate medical care for prisoners)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference requires subjective awareness of substantial risk)
Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal or entity liability requires a policy or custom)
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (private contractors performing state functions act under color of state law)
Street v. Correctional Corp. of Am., 102 F.3d 810 (6th Cir. 1996) (private medical provider cannot be held liable under § 1983 on respondeat superior theory)
Lanman v. Hinson, 529 F.3d 673 (6th Cir. 2008) (must plead particularized facts showing each defendant's personal involvement)