Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan summarily dismissed Deandre M. Alexander’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against a correctional-facility food supervisor. The court held that a single, brief incident of verbal sexual harassment, without physical contact or a threat of contact, did not state an Eighth Amendment claim.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a single, brief, sexually harassing verbal remark by a correctional employee, without physical contact or a threat of contact, states a claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- Whether the complaint should be summarily dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim.
Holdings
- A single, brief, and non-severe instance of verbal sexual harassment, unaccompanied by physical contact or a threat of contact, does not state an Eighth Amendment claim.
- The complaint must be summarily dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) because it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Key quotations
“The Sixth Circuit, however, has held that “isolated, brief, and not severe” instances of sexual harassment do not give rise to an Eighth Amendment violation.” (Section III)
“While the alleged comment was clearly inappropriate, unprofessional and could be perceived as sexually harassing, it was “isolated, brief, and not severe.”” (Section III)
“Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court summarily dismisses the complaint for failure to state a claim.” (Section IV)
Factual background
Alexander, a Michigan prisoner, went to the correctional-facility chow hall with a written medical accommodation allowing him to receive ice. After reviewing the accommodation, food supervisor Unknown McVean made a sexually suggestive remark in front of other inmates. Alexander alleged that the remark was humiliating, degrading, and intended to provoke a hostile environment or increase his risk of abuse, but he alleged no physical contact or threat of physical contact.
Procedural history
Alexander filed the civil-rights complaint and was granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis. After screening the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the district court concluded that the alleged isolated verbal sexual harassment did not state an Eighth Amendment violation and dismissed the action before service.