Thomas 256825 v. Nasser
1:20-cv-01186
W.D. Mich.
May 17, 2021
Check Treatment
Docket

SHAWN THOMAS v. ANDY NASSER, et al.

Case No. 1:20-cv-1186

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Honorable Janet T. Neff

May 17, 2021

ECF No. 9, PageID.28 Filed 05/17/21

OPINION

This is а civil rights action brought by a county jail prisoner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (PLRA), the Court is required to dismiss any prisoner action brought under federal law if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). The Court must read Plaintiff‘s pro se complaint indulgently, see , and accept Plaintiff‘s allegatiоns as true, unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. . Applying these standards, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff‘s complaint for failure to state a claim.

Discussion

I. Factual allegations

Plaintiff is presently incarcerated in the Osecola County Jail. He claims that on April 26, 2020, apparently while he was detained pending trial, he was called to his cell door for medication. Deputies Andy Nasser аnd Nick Pheffer directed Plaintiff to take his medications. He asked what the medications were, but Nasser and Pheffer told him to take them even though they did not identify them. Plaintiff took the medications. Shortly thereafter he felt dizzy and sick. He started to feel chest pains. Plaintiff and his cellmates called for help. The deputies took Plaintiff to the nurse‘s office. Plaintiff‘s blood pressure was dangerously high. They moved Plaintiff to a medical observation cell. He remained under observation for a day and a half. At that time, his bond was posted and he was released. He immediately filed a complaint with Defendant Captain Jeremy Andres claiming that he was intimidated into taking the wrong medication. Plaintiff reports that the medication he tоok was a blood thinner—a medication his doctor specifically told him he should not take.

Plaintiff sues Deputies Nasser and Pheffer and Captain Andres. He also sues Osecola County and the Osceola County Board of Commissioners. He seeks a damage award of $1,500,000.00, but notes the he would settle out of court for $300,000.00.

II. Failure to state a claim

A complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it fails “to give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” (quoting ). While a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff‘s allegations must include more than labels and conclusions. ; (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.“). The court must determine whether the complaint contains “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” . “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” . Although the plausibility standard is not equivalent to a “probability requirement,” it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” (quoting ). “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not ‘show[n]‘—that the pleader is entitled to relief.” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)); see also (holding that thе Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard applies to dismissals of prisoner cases on initial review under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the federal Constitution or laws and must show that the deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. ; . Because § 1983 is a method for vindicating federal rights, not a source of substantive rights itself, the first stеp in an action under § 1983 is to identify the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed. .

III. Osecola County

A local government such as a municipality or county “cannot be held liable solely because it employs a tortfeasor—or, ‍‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‍in other words, a municipality cannot be held liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory.” . Instead, a municipality may only be liable under § 1983 when its policy or custom causes the injury, regardless of the form of relief sought by the plaintiff. (citing ). In a municipal liability claim, the finding of a policy or custom is the initial determination to be made. . The policy or custom must be the moving force behind the constitutional injury, and a plaintiff must identify the policy, connect the policy to the governmental entity, and show that the particular injury was incurred because of the execution of that policy. ; ; . It is the court‘s task to identify the officials or governmental bodies which speak with final policymaking authority for the local government in a particular area or on a particular issue. .

In matters pertaining to the conditions of the jail and to the operation of thе deputies, the sheriff is the policymaker for the county. Mich. Comp. Laws § 51.75 (sheriff has the “charge and custody” of the jails in his county); Mich. Comp. Laws § 51.281 (sheriff prescribes rules and regulations for conduct of prisoners); Mich. Comp. Laws § 51.70 (sheriff may appoint deputies and revoke appointments at any time); (the sheriff of “a given county is the only official with direct control over the duties, responsibilities, and methods оf operation of deputy sheriffs” and thus, the sheriff “establishes the policies and customs described in Monell“). Thus, the court looks to the allegations in plaintiff‘s complaint to determine whether plaintiff has alleged that the sheriff has established a policy or custom which caused plaintiff to be deprived of a constitutional right.

Plaintiff‘s action fails at this first step because his allegations have not identified a policy or custom. A “policy” includes a “policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated” by the sheriff. . Plaintiff has not asserted that there is an official policy.

Plaintiff also has not identified a custom. The Sixth Circuit has explained that a “custom” . . . for the purрoses of Monell liability must be so permanent and well settled as to constitute a custom or usage with the force of law. In turn, the notion of “law” includes deeply embedded traditional ways of carrying out state policy. It must reflect a course of action deliberately chosen from among various alternatives. In short, a “custom” is a “legal institution” not memоrialized by written law. (citations and quotations omitted).

Where a plaintiff fails to allege that a policy or custom existed, dismissal of the action for failure to state a claim is appropriate. ; see also (affirming dismissal of § 1983 action when plaintiff allegation of policy or custom was conclusory, and plaintiff failed to allege facts tending to support the allegation). Therеfore, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff‘s action against Osceola County because he has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

IV. Board of Commissioners

It is a basic pleading essential that a plaintiff attribute factual allegations to particular defendants. See (holding that, in order to state a claim, a plaintiff must make sufficient allegations to give a defendant fair notice of the claim). Where a person is ‍‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‍named as a defendant without an allegation of specific conduct, the complaint is subject to dismissal, even under the liberal construction afforded to pro se complaints. See (dismissing complaint where plaintiff failed to allege how any named defendant was involved in the violation of his rights); (dismissing plaintiff‘s claims where the comрlaint did not allege with any degree of specificity which of the named defendants were personally involved in or responsible for each alleged violation of rights); (requiring allegations of personal involvement against each defendant); (“[p]laintiff‘s claims against those individuals are without a basis in law as the complaint is totally devoid of аllegations as to them which would suggest their involvement in the events leading to his injuries“).

Plaintiff makes no mention of the role any member of the Osecola County Board of Commissioners played in violating Plaintiff‘s constitutional rights. Because Plaintiff‘s claims fall far short of the minimal pleading standards under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (requiring “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief“), his complaint must be dismissed against the Osceola County Board of Commissioners.

V. Captain Andres

Plaintiff fails to make specific factual allegations against Defendant Andres, other than Plaintiff‘s claim that he complained to Andres after Plaintiff was given the wrong medication. Presumably Plaintiff contends that Andres failed to conduct an adequate investigation in response to Plaintiff‘s complaint.

Government officials may not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior or vicarious liability. ; ; . A claimed constitutional violation must be based upon active unconstitutional behavior. ; . The acts of one‘s subordinates are not enough, nor can supervisory liability bе based upon the mere failure to act. ; ; . Moreover, § 1983 liability may not be imposed simply because a supervisor denied an administrative grievance or failed to act based upon information contained in a grievance. See . “[A] plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official‘s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” . Plaintiff has failed to allege that Defendant Andres engaged in any active unconstitutional behavior. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendant Andres.

VI. Deputies Nasser and Pheffer

Plaintiff alleges specific actions by Defendants Nasser and Pheffer. He claims that each deputy played some role in convincing Plaintiff to take the medication that сaused him significant physical distress. The Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment against those convicted of crimes. U.S. Const. amend. VIII. The Eighth Amendment obligates prison authorities to provide medical care to incarcerated individuals, as a failure to provide such care would be inconsistent with contemporary standards of decency. . The Eighth Amendment is violated when a prison official is deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of a prisoner. ; .

Deliberate indifference may be manifested by a doctor‘s failure to respond to the medical needs of a prisoner, or by “prison guards in intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care or intentionally ‍‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‍interfering with the treatment оnce prescribed. Regardless of how evidenced, deliberate indifference to a prisoner‘s serious illness or injury states a cause of action under § 1983.” .

A claim for the deprivation of adequate medical care has an objective and a subjective component. . To satisfy the objective component, the plaintiff must allege that the medical need at issue is sufficiently serious. In other words, the inmate must show that he is incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm. The objective component of the adequate medical care test is satisfied “[w]here the seriousness of a prisoner‘s need[] for medical care is obvious even to a lay person.” ; see also . Obviousnеss, however, is not strictly limited to what is detectable to the eye. Even if the layman cannot see the medical need, a condition may be obviously medically serious where a layman, if informed of the true medical situation, would deem the need for medical attention clear. See, e.g., (holding that a prisoner who died from a perforated duodenum exhibited an “objectively serious need for medical treatment,” even though his symptoms appeared to the medical staff at the time to be consistent with alcohol withdrawal); (holding that prisoner‘s severed tendon was a “quite obvious” medical need, since “any lay person would realize [it] to be serious,” even though the condition was not visually obvious). If the рlaintiff‘s claim, however, is based on “the prison‘s failure to treat a condition adequately, or where the prisoner‘s affliction is seemingly minor or non-obvious,” , the plaintiff must “place verifying medical evidence in the record to establish the detrimental effect of the delay in medical treatment,” (internal quotation marks omitted).

The subjective component requires an inmate to show that prison officials have “a sufficiently culpable state of mind” in denying medical care. . Deliberate indifference “entails something more than mere negligence,” but can be “satisfied by something less than acts or omissions for the very purpose of causing harm or with knowledge that harm will result.” . “[T]he official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” . To prove a defendant‘s subjective knowledge, “[a] plaintiff may rely on circumstantial evidence . . . . A jury is entitled to ‘conclude that a prison official knew of a substantial risk from the very fact that the risk was obvious.‘” (quoting ).

However, not every claim by a prisoner that he has reсeived inadequate medical treatment states a violation of the Eighth Amendment. . As the Supreme Court explained:

[A]n inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical care cannot be said to constitute an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain or to be repugnant to the conscience of mankind. Thus, a complaint that a physician has been negligent in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the Eighth Amendment. Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner. In order to state a cognizable claim, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidencе deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.

(quotations omitted). Thus, differences in judgment between an inmate and prison medical personnel regarding the appropriate medical diagnoses or treatment are not enough to state a deliberate indifference claim. ; . This is so even if the misdiagnosis results in an inadequate course of treatment and considerable suffering. .

Although the Eighth Amendment‘s protections specifically apply only to convicted prisoners, see , the courts have held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment operates to guarantee those same protections to pretrial detainees. ; see also (stating that allegеd violation of pretrial detainee‘s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights is governed by the “deliberate indifference” standard). Plaintiff‘s allegations suggest that he is presently a convicted prisoner; however, at the time he was given the wrong medication, it appears he was a pretrial detainee.

In , the Supreme Court held that evaluation of the use of excessive force on pretrial detainees is conducted under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which does not include the subjective prong of the Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference standard. Instead, the relevant inquiry is whether the force purposely or knowingly used against the prisoner was objectively unreasonable. ; see also (citing Kingsley).

Since Kingsley, however, nеither the Sixth Circuit nor the Supreme Court has clearly indicated whether the deliberate-indifference standard of the Eighth Amendment (requiring both objective and subjective components), which traditionally has been applied to prison detainees’ conditions-of-confinement claims (such as denials of medical care or cell conditions), is affectеd by the holding in Kingsley. In , the Sixth Circuit declined to decide whether, in the context of a failure to provide medical care, Kingsley eliminated the requirement of proving the subjective prong of the deliberate indifference test for pretrial detainees under the Fourteenth Amendment. ; see also (declining to reach the issue, finding that allegations did not meet the recklessness standard аpplied by some courts after Kingsley to medical claims for pretrial detainees) (note contrasting view by Clay, J., dissenting); (declining to address the question) (citing (observing that Kingsley calls into serious doubt whether a pretrial detainee must demonstrate the subjective element of the deliberate-indifference standard, but not reaching the issue)). Nevertheless, the Sixth Circuit has, in a variety of decisions, cоntinued to apply the deliberate-indifference standard to condition-of-confinement claims by pretrial detainees, without considering Kingsley. See ; ; ; ; ; see also (declining to decide whether Kingsley controlled jail detainees’ challenge to COVID-19 precautions and holding that, at a minimum, a violation of due process required more than simple negligence). Absent further definitive guidаnce from the Supreme Court or the Sixth Circuit, this Court continues to apply the deliberate indifference standard to medical claims raised by pretrial detainees.

In Plaintiff‘s case, even if his allegations suffice to demonstrate an objectively serious risk of harm, he has not alleged facts that support an inference that Deputies Nasser or Pheffer were aware of facts from which they might conclude that Plaintiff faced a risk of serious harm if he took the medications they were directed to give him. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to allege the necessary subjective component of his claim. Accordingly, the claims against Nasser and Pheffer are properly dismissed as well.

Conclusion

Having conducted the review requirеd by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Court determines that Plaintiff‘s complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). The Court must next decide whether an appeal of this action would be in good faith within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See . Although the Court concludes that Plaintiff‘s claims are properly dismissed, the Court does not conclude that any issue Plaintiff might raise on appeal would be frivоlous. . Accordingly, the Court does not certify that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. Should Plaintiff appeal this decision, the Court will assess the $505.00 appellate filing fee pursuant to § 1915(b)(1), see , unless Plaintiff is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis, e.g., by the “three-strikes” rule of § 1915(g). If he is barred, he will be required to pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee in one lump sum.

This is a dismissal for failure to state a claim brought by a ‍‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‍prisoner while incarcerated in a facility as described by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

A judgment consistent with this opinion will be entered.

Dated: May 17, 2021

/s/ Janet T. Neff

Janet T. Neff

United States District Judge

Read the detailed case summary