From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hursey v. Anderson

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION
Nov 16, 2015
Case No. 2:15-cv-145 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 16, 2015)

Opinion

Case No. 2:15-cv-145

11-16-2015

DASHI HURSEY, Plaintiff, v. DIANE ANDERSON, et al., Defendants.


OPINION

This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, PUB. L. NO. 104-134, 110 STAT. 1321 (1996), 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 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and accept Plaintiff's allegations as true, unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). Applying these standards, Plaintiff's action will be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Factual Allegations

Plaintiff Dashi Hursey, a Michigan state prisoner currently confined at the Marquette Branch Prison, filed this pro se civil rights action against Defendants Diane Anderson, L.P.N., Sergeant Hennings, Warden Robert Napel, Grievance Specialist Sean Lockhart, Grievance Manager Richard D. Russell, Health Unit Manager Larry Hill, R.N., Nurse Supervisor Sandra Schucklier, R.N., Lieutenant D. Tasson, Nurse Supervisor C. Scott, R.N., Nurse Supervisor Brenda James, Health Service Manager Paul A. Eyke, Grievance Coordinator Glenn Caron, Deputy Warden James Alexander, Nurse Supervisor Thomas Grant, R.N., Inspector Jeff Contreas, Psychologist Fred Pascoe, Gabe Gluesing, R.N., Dr. Wijay Agunaratine, Physician's Assistant Jason Vayier, Summer Laughunn, R.N., Regional Health Care Administrator Patricia Lamb, R.N., and Steve Meleko, R.N.

Plaintiff's complaint consists of largely conclusory statements which assert that Defendants violated his constitutional rights. Plaintiff alleges that on July 31, 2012, Defendant Anderson filed a false misconduct ticket on him, which charged him with assault. Plaintiff was placed in segregation. On August 2, 2012, Plaintiff was found not guilty. However, Plaintiff was not released from segregation until August 15, 2012. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Anderson asked Defendant Contreras to keep Plaintiff in segregation as a personal favor to her. Plaintiff claims that Defendant Anderson is allowed to "continue to work around, harass, torment, [and] threaten" Plaintiff. In addition, Defendant Anderson encourages other Defendants to terrorize Plaintiff. Plaintiff contends that he should be protected from any contact with Defendant Anderson and that the failure to impose such a separation between himself and Defendant Anderson shows that there is a conspiracy against him by all of the named Defendants.

Plaintiff claims that Defendant Hennings was in a relationship with Defendant Anderson and often called Plaintiff names and referred to Plaintiff as a "poor excuse for a man." In addition, Plaintiff contends that Defendant Hennings' language toward Plaintiff often had serious racial overtones. On July 8, 2013, Plaintiff wrote a grievance on Defendant Anderson and her supervisors. Defendant Hennings responded to the grievance and falsely stated that he had interviewed Plaintiff. Defendant Hennings also falsely stated that Plaintiff had sexually assaulted Defendant Anderson, despite the fact that Plaintiff was not charged with a sexual assault. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Tasson reviewed the step I grievance against Defendant Anderson and failed to note that Plaintiff was never charged with "sexual assault" and was found not guilty of the alleged assault. Plaintiff contends that Defendant Napel failed to investigate any of the claims asserted by Plaintiff in his step II appeal of the grievance and merely concluded that the grievance was written in retaliation for Defendant Anderson's misconduct ticket.

Plaintiff claims that Defendants Lockhart, Russell, Caron, and Lamb are being named in his complaint because they are the "hubs" between the grievance respondents and the reviewers, specifically they are grievance coordinators. Plaintiff claims that they allowed one of the listed Defendants in this case to be the actual respondent and reviewer of Plaintiff's grievance at steps I and II. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Hill spoke to him on four separate occasions regarding Plaintiff's issues with Defendant Anderson, but failed to intervene on Plaintiff's behalf. On one occasion, Defendant Hill told Plaintiff that he would not do anything to help him and that if Plaintiff ever put his hands on Defendant Anderson, it would "go very badly for [Plaintiff] as a black man in prison in the upper peninsula."

Plaintiff alleges that on September 24, 2012, Defendant Schucklier interviewed him on a grievance he wrote on Defendant Anderson and Defendant Schucklier. During the interview, Plaintiff objected that Defendant Schucklier should not be interviewing him because she was one of the parties named in the grievance. Defendant Schucklier stated that she was not going to discipline Defendant Anderson for anything. Plaintiff complains that Defendants James, Grant, Scott, and Lamb all responded to grievances written by Plaintiff despite the fact that they were named in the grievances.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Caron improperly rejected grievances in order to prevent Plaintiff from exhausting his administrative remedies. In addition, Plaintiff claims that Defendant Alexander violated MDOC policy when he failed to properly review Plaintiff's grievances and ensure compliance with MDOC policy. Plaintiff states that Defendant Gluesing told him on several occasions that he did not like it when Plaintiff pursued litigation against Defendants Anderson and Agunaratine. Plaintiff claims that Defendant Gluesing deprived him of health care on September 23, 2014, in retaliation for filing grievances, but fails to specify the nature of this denial. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Vayier and Agunaratine told him on multiple occasions that they would make it difficult for him to get treatment at the Marquette Branch Prison (MBP) because of his ongoing conflict with Defendant Anderson. Plaintiff states that at one point, Defendant Agunaratine lied and stated that Plaintiff had good range of motion and 100% strength in his arm, despite the fact that Plaintiff had previously had a botched shoulder surgery and every other medical professional who had examined him stated that he suffered from 0% range of motion and strength in the affected shoulder. Plaintiff filed a grievance on this issue and the response indicated that Defendant Agunaratine had mistakenly mixed up Plaintiff's file with that of another prisoner who had a shoulder separation. Plaintiff does not think that this charting error was ever corrected.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Meleko was Defendant Anderson's lover and repeatedly threatened Plaintiff, abused him verbally, and sexually assaulted Plaintiff on several occasions. Specifically Plaintiff claims that Defendant Meleko pulled down his pants and showed Plaintiff part of his buttocks. Plaintiff also claims that Defendant Meleko denied him medications and medical treatment on several occasions. Plaintiff contends that he has sent letters and affidavits from himself and witnesses to Defendants Hill, James, and Scott, but they have refused to take any corrective action.

Plaintiff claims that Defendants have violated his rights under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief.

Discussion

I. 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.'" Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). While a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's allegations must include more than labels and conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) ("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." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. "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." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. 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." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). "[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." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2)); see also Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010) (holding that the 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. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Dominguez v. Corr. Med. Servs., 555 F.3d 543, 549 (6th Cir. 2009). Because § 1983 is a method for vindicating federal rights, not a source of substantive rights itself, the first step in an action under § 1983 is to identify the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994).

The court initially notes that most of Plaintiff's allegations concern violations of MDOC grievance policy. Plaintiff has no due process right to file a prison grievance. The courts repeatedly have held that there exists no constitutionally protected due process right to an effective prison grievance procedure. See Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 467 (1983); Walker v. Mich. Dep't of Corr., 128 F. App'x 441, 445 (6th Cir. 2005); Argue v. Hofmeyer, 80 F. App'x 427, 430 (6th Cir. 2003); Young v. Gundy, 30 F. App'x 568, 569-70 (6th Cir. 2002); Carpenter v. Wilkinson, No. 99- 3562, 2000 WL 190054, at *2 (6th Cir. Feb. 7, 2000); see also Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1430 (7th Cir. 1996); Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 75 (4th Cir. 1994) (collecting cases). Michigan law does not create a liberty interest in the grievance procedure. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 249 (1983); Keenan v. Marker, 23 F. App'x 405, 407 (6th Cir. 2001); Wynn v. Wolf, No. 93-2411, 1994 WL 105907, at *1 (6th Cir. Mar. 28, 1994). Because Plaintiff has no liberty interest in the grievance process, Defendants' conduct did not deprive him of due process.

The court further notes that Plaintiff fails to make specific factual allegations against Defendants Napel, Lockhart, Russell, Hill, Schucklier, Tasson, Scott, James, Eyke, Caron, Alexander, Grant, Pascoe, Laughunn, and Lamb, other than his claim that they failed to conduct an investigation in response to his grievances or other complaints. Government officials may not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior or vicarious liability. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676; Monell v. New York City Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691(1978); Everson v. Leis, 556 F.3d 484, 495 (6th Cir. 2009). A claimed constitutional violation must be based upon active unconstitutional behavior. Grinter v. Knight, 532 F.3d 567, 575-76 (6th Cir. 2008); Greene v. Barber, 310 F.3d 889, 899 (6th Cir. 2002). The acts of one's subordinates are not enough, nor can supervisory liability be based upon the mere failure to act. Grinter, 532 F.3d at 576; Greene, 310 F.3d at 899; Summers v. Leis, 368 F.3d 881, 888 (6th Cir. 2004). 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 Shehee v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295, 300 (6th Cir. 1999). "[A] plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676. Plaintiff has failed to allege that Defendants Napel, Lockhart, Russell, Hill, Schucklier, Tasson, Scott, James, Eyke, Caron, Alexander, Grant, Pascoe, Laughunn, and Lamb engaged in any active unconstitutional behavior. Accordingly, he fails to state a claim against them.

Plaintiff claims that Defendant Anderson retaliated against him when she wrote a false misconduct ticket. Retaliation based upon a prisoner's exercise of his or her constitutional rights violates the Constitution. See Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378, 394 (6th Cir. 1999) (en banc). In order to set forth a First Amendment retaliation claim, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) he was engaged in protected conduct; (2) an adverse action was taken against him that would deter a person of ordinary firmness from engaging in that conduct; and (3) the adverse action was motivated, at least in part, by the protected conduct. Id. Moreover, a plaintiff must be able to prove that the exercise of the protected right was a substantial or motivating factor in the defendant's alleged retaliatory conduct. See Smith v. Campbell, 250 F.3d 1032, 1037 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Mount Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287 (1977)).

Temporal proximity "may be 'significant enough to constitute indirect evidence of a causal connection so as to create an inference of retaliatory motive.'" Muhammad v. Close, 379 F.3d 413, 417-18 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting DiCarlo v. Potter, 358 F.3d 408, 422 (6th Cir. 2004)). However, "[c]onclusory allegations of temporal proximity are not sufficient to show a retaliatory motive." Skinner v. Bolden, 89 F. App'x 579, 580 (6th Cir. 2004).

Moreover, Muhammad does not stand for the proposition that temporal proximity alone is sufficient to create an issue of fact as to retaliatory motive.

In Muhammad the Sixth Circuit did not resolve the issue, but merely observed that "temporal proximity alone may be 'significant enough to constitute indirect evidence of a causal connection so as to create
an inference of retaliatory motive.'" Id. at 418 (quoting DiCarlo v. Potter, 358 F.3d 408, 422 (6th Cir.2004) (emphasis added). Even if temporal proximity may in some cases create an issue of fact as to retaliatory motive, it would only be sufficient if the evidence was "significant enough." Plaintiff's conclusory and ambiguous evidence is not "significant enough" to create an issue of fact as to retaliatory motive.
Brandon v. Bergh, 2010 WL 188731, slip op. at 1 (W.D. Mich., Jan. 16, 2010).

In this case, Plaintiff claims that Defendant Anderson engaged in a variety of misconduct against him, which included writing a false misconduct ticket on him. However, Plaintiff fails to allege any facts showing that Defendant Anderson's conduct was motivated by a desire to retaliate against Plaintiff. Therefore, this claim is properly dismissed.

Plaintiff claims that Defendant Anderson violated his due process rights when she falsified a misconduct ticket on him. However, it is clear that if Plaintiff had a right implicating the due process protections of the Constitution, Plaintiff received due process of law. In all cases where a person stands to be deprived of his life, liberty or property, he is entitled to due process of law. This due process of law gives the person the opportunity to convince an unbiased decision maker that, for example, he has been wrongly or falsely accused or that the evidence against him is false. The Due Process Clause does not guarantee that the procedure will produce a correct decision. "It must be remembered that even if a state decision does deprive an individual of life, [liberty], or property, and even if that decision is erroneous, it does not necessarily follow that the decision violated that individual's right to due process." Martinez v. California, 444 U.S. 277, 284, n.9 (1980). "[T]he deprivation by state action of a constitutionally protected interest in "life, liberty or property" is not in itself unconstitutional; what is unconstitutional is the deprivation of such an interest without due process of law." Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 125 (1990) (emphasis in original). Further, an inmate has no right to counsel in disciplinary proceedings. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 569-70 (1974); Franklin v. Aycock, 795 F.2d 1253, 1263 (6th Cir. 1986). In this case, Plaintiff received a hearing and was found "not guilty." Plaintiff's due process claim against Defendant Anderson is properly dismissed.

In addition, Plaintiff claims that after he was found not guilty of the assault misconduct written by Defendant Anderson, Defendant Contreas kept him in segregation for an additional 13 days as a favor to Defendant Anderson. The Supreme Court long has held that the Due Process Clause does not protect every change in the conditions of confinement having an impact on a prisoner. See Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976). In Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995), the Court set forth the standard for determining when a prisoner's loss of liberty implicates a federally cognizable liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. According to the Sandin Court, a prisoner is entitled to the protections of due process only when a deprivation "will inevitably affect the duration of his sentence" or imposes an "atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life." Sandin, 515 U.S. at 486-87; see also Jones v. Baker, 155 F.3d 810, 812 (6th Cir. 1998); Rimmer-Bey v. Brown, 62 F.3d 789, 790-91 (6th Cir. 1995).

Confinement in administrative segregation "is the sort of confinement that inmates should reasonably anticipate receiving at some point in their incarceration." Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 467-73 (1983). Thus, it is considered atypical and significant only in "extreme circumstances." Joseph v. Curtin, 410 F. App'x 865, 868 (6th Cir. 2010). Generally, courts will consider the nature and duration of a stay in segregation to determine whether it imposes an "atypical and significant hardship." Harden-Bey v. Rutter, 524 F.3d 789, 794 (6th. Cir. 2008).

In Sandin, the Supreme Court concluded that the segregation at issue in that case (disciplinary segregation for 30 days) did not impose an atypical and significant hardship. Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484. Similarly, the Sixth Circuit has held that mere placement in administrative segregation, and placement for a relatively short period of time, do not require the protections of due process. Rimmer-Bey, 62 F.3d at 790-91; see Joseph v. Curtin, 410 F. App'x 865, 868 (6th Cir. 2010) (61 days in segregation is not atypical and significant). The Sixth Circuit has also held, in specific circumstances, that confinement in segregation for a relatively long period of time does not implicate a liberty interest. See, e.g., Baker, 155 F.3d at 812-23 (two years of segregation while the inmate was investigated for the murder of a prison guard in a riot); Mackey v. Dyke, 111 F.3d 460 (6th Cir.1997) (one year of segregation following convictions for possession of illegal contraband and assault, including a 117-day delay in reclassification due to prison crowding). But cf. Selby v. Caruso, 734 F.3d 554, 559 (6th Cir. 2013) (13 years of segregation implicates a liberty interest); Harden-Bey, 524 F.3d at 795 (remanding to the district court to consider whether the plaintiff's allegedly "indefinite" period of segregation, i.e., three years without an explanation from prison officials, implicates a liberty interest); Harris v. Caruso, 465 F. App'x 481, 484 (6th Cir. 2012) (eight years of segregation implicates a liberty interest). In this case, Plaintiff's allegations that he was improperly kept in segregation for 13 days does not constitute an atypical and significant hardship. Therefore, Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Contreas are properly dismissed.

Plaintiff claims that Defendant Hennings lied in response to a grievance and that he engaged in verbal abuse toward Plaintiff which had racial overtones. As noted above, lying in response to a grievance does not implicate Plaintiff's due process rights. In addition, the use of harassing or degrading language by a prison official, although unprofessional and deplorable, does not rise to constitutional dimensions. See Ivey v. Wilson, 832 F.2d 950, 954-55 (6th Cir. 1987); see also Johnson v. Dellatifa, 357 F.3d 539, 546 (6th Cir. 2004) (harassment and verbal abuse do not constitute the type of infliction of pain that the Eighth Amendment prohibits); Violett v. Reynolds, No. 02-6366, 2003 WL 22097827, at *3 (6th Cir. Sept. 5, 2003) (verbal abuse and harassment do not constitute punishment that would support an Eighth Amendment claim); Thaddeus-X v. Langley, No. 96-1282, 1997 WL 205604, at *1 (6th Cir. Apr. 24, 1997) (verbal harassment is insufficient to state a claim); Murray v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, No. 95-5204, 1997 WL 34677, at *3 (6th Cir. Jan. 28, 1997) ("Although we do not condone the alleged statements, the Eighth Amendment does not afford us the power to correct every action, statement or attitude of a prison official with which we might disagree."); Clark v. Turner, No. 96-3265, 1996 WL 721798, at *2 (6th Cir. Dec. 13, 1996) ("Verbal harassment and idle threats are generally not sufficient to constitute an invasion of an inmate's constitutional rights."); Brown v. Toombs, No. 92-1756, 1993 WL 11882 (6th Cir. Jan. 21, 1993) ("Brown's allegation that a corrections officer used derogatory language and insulting racial epithets is insufficient to support his claim under the Eighth Amendment."). Even the occasional or sporadic use of racial slurs, although unprofessional and reprehensible, does not rise to a level of constitutional magnitude. See Torres v. Oakland County, 758 F.2d 147, 152 (6th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state an Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Hennings arising from his alleged verbal abuse.

Plaintiff makes a conclusory claim that Defendant Meleko sexually assaulted him. However, the only specific factual allegations Plaintiff makes regarding Defendant Meleko are that he showed Plaintiff part of his buttocks. "[B]ecause the sexual harassment or abuse of an inmate by a corrections officer can never serve a legitimate penological purpose and may well result in severe physical and psychological harm, such abuse can, in certain circumstances, constitute the 'unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain' forbidden by the Eighth Amendment." Freitas v. Ault, 109 F.3d 1335, 1338 (8th Cir. 1997) (quoted cases omitted).

Circuit courts consistently have held that sexual harassment, absent contact or touching, does not satisfy the objective requirement because such conduct does not constitute the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. See Morales v. Mackalm, 278 F.3d 126, 132 (2d Cir. 2002) (allegations that prison guard asked prisoner to have sex with her and to masturbate in front of her and other female staffers did not rise to level of Eighth Amendment violation); Barney v. Pulsipher, 143 F.3d 1299, 1311 n.11 (10th Cir. 1998) (allegations that countyjailer subjected female prisoners to severe verbal sexual harassment and intimidation was not sufficient to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment); Howard v. Everett, No. 99-1277EA, 2000 WL 268493, at *1 (8th Cir. March 10, 2000) (sexual comments and gestures by prison guards did not constitute unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain); cf. Seltzer-Bey v. Delo, 66 F.3d 961, 962-63 (8th Cir. 1995) (allegations that prison guard conducted daily strip searches, made sexual comments about prisoner's penis and buttocks, and rubbed prisoner's buttocks with nightstick were sufficient to withstand motion for summary judgment); Zander v. McGinnis, No. 97-1484, 1998 WL 384625, at *2 (6th Cir. June 19, 1998) (verbal abuse of mouthing "pet names" at prisoner for ten months failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim); Murray v. United States Bureau of Prisons, No. 95-5204, 1997 WL 34677, at *3 (6th Cir. Jan. 28, 1997) (magistrate judge correctly held that verbal abuse in the form of offensive remarks regarding a transsexual prisoner's bodily appearance, transsexualism, and presumed sexual preference cannot state an Eighth Amendment claim). Some courts have held that even minor, isolated incidents of sexual touching coupled with offensive sexual remarks do not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation. See, e.g., Solomon v. Mich. Dep't of Corr., 478 F. App'x 318, 320-21 (6th Cir. 2012) (two "brief" incidents of physical contact during pat-down searches, including touching and squeezing the prisoner's penis, coupled with sexual remarks, do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation); Jackson v. Madery, 158 F. App'x 656, 661 (6th Cir. 2005) (correction officer's conduct in allegedly rubbing and grabbing prisoner's buttocks in degrading manner was "isolated, brief, and not severe" and so failed to meet Eighth Amendment standards); Johnson v. Ward, No. 99-1596, 2000 WL 659354, at *1 (6th Cir. May 11, 2000) (male prisoner's claim that a male officer placed his hand on the prisoner's buttock in a sexual manner and made an offensive sexual remark did not meet the objective component of the Eighth Amendment); Berryhill v. Schriro, 137 F.3d 1073, 1075 (8th Cir. 1998) (where inmate failed to assert that he feared sexual abuse, two brief touches to his buttocks could not be construed as sexual assault); accord Boxer X v. Harris, 437 F.3d 1107, 1111 (11th Cir. 2006); Boddie v. Schneider, 105 F.3d 857, 859-61 (2d Cir. 1997) (court dismissed as inadequate prisoner's claim that female corrections officer made a pass at him, squeezed his hand, touched his penis, called him a "sexy black devil," pressed her breasts against his chest, and pressed against his private parts).

If true, Defendant Meleko's conduct toward Plaintiff was reprehensible, but it does not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation. Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant Meleko ever touched him or had any form of physical contact with him. Acts of verbal sexual harassment, standing alone, are insufficient to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment. See Morales, 278 F.3d at 132; Zander, 1998 WL 384625, at *2. Therefore, Plaintiff's allegations of sexual assault fail to state an Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Meleko.

Finally, Plaintiff claims that Defendants Gluesing, Agunaratine, Vayier, and Meleko denied him medications and treatment on various occasions. However, Plaintiff fails to allege any specific facts in support of this assertion. While a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's allegations must include more than labels and conclusions. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The court must determine whether the complaint contains "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. The court need not accept "threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements . . . ." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). "The plausibility standard is not akin to a 'probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). "[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." Id. at 679 (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2)). Therefore, Plaintiff's claims that Defendants Gluesing, Agunaratine, Vayier, and Meleko denied him medications and treatment are properly dismissed.

Conclusion

Having conducted the review required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Court determines that Plaintiff's action will be dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 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 McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 611 (6th Cir. 1997). For the same reasons that the Court dismisses the action, the Court discerns no good-faith basis for an appeal. Should Plaintiff appeal this decision, the Court will assess the $505.00 appellate filing fee pursuant to § 1915(b)(1), see McGore, 114 F.3d at 610-11, 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 as described by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

A Judgment consistent with this Opinion will be entered. Dated: 11/16/2015

/s/ R . Allan Edgar

R. ALLAN EDGAR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Hursey v. Anderson

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION
Nov 16, 2015
Case No. 2:15-cv-145 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 16, 2015)
Case details for

Hursey v. Anderson

Case Details

Full title:DASHI HURSEY, Plaintiff, v. DIANE ANDERSON, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Nov 16, 2015

Citations

Case No. 2:15-cv-145 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 16, 2015)

Citing Cases

Smith v. Mohr

Based on the precedent set forth above, this length of stay, without more detailed information, is…