Stull 257230 v. McCalvey, 1:25-cv-00574

Robin Stull, a state prisoner, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Eighth Amendment violations following an assault by another prisoner while incarcerated in the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC).
The incident occurred at the Carson City Correctional Facility (DRF), but Stull is currently housed at a different facility.
Stull claims that the prisoner who attacked him was on "non-bond status" (supposed to be confined pending a misconduct hearing) but was allowed out of his cell for medication, during which the assault happened.
Stull named three DRF staff as defendants, arguing they failed to follow MDOC policy regarding confinement of "non-bond" status prisoners, thereby failing to protect his safety.
The court, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), conducted an initial review before any defendants were served and ultimately dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Whether failure to follow MDOC policy on non-bond status prisoner amounted to a constitutional violation	Stull: Defendants were deliberately indifferent by not confining non-bond prisoner, risking safety	Defendants (pre-service): Lack of deliberate indifference; mere policy violation, not constitutional	Dismissed; no plausible Eighth Amendment claim
Whether complaint stated sufficient facts for deliberate indifference under Eighth Amendment	Stull: Defendants responsible for risk, should have known	Defendants: No facts showing awareness of specific risk	Dismissed; insufficient factual allegations
Whether violation of state policy supports a § 1983 claim	Stull: Policy violation = constitutional violation	Defendants: § 1983 does not cover state law/policy violations	Dismissed; state policy violation not actionable under § 1983
Whether the complaint should be dismissed at initial review under PLRA	Stull: Sought declaratory/monetary relief for constitutional harm	Defendants: Not parties yet; no adequate claim pled	Dismissed at screening, no relief granted

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment requires awareness and disregard of excessive risk to inmate safety)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (complaint must state plausible claim, not just labels and conclusions)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (facial plausibility required for complaints; threadbare recitals and conclusory statements are insufficient)
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (Section 1983 requires violation of federal rights by one acting under color of state law)
Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (prison officials must take reasonable measures to guarantee inmate safety)
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (pro se complaints are read liberally but must still state a claim)
Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922 (§ 1983 covers only violations of rights secured by federal law, not state law)