Marshall v. Westcomb

Marshall v. Westcomb · United States District Court, Western District of Michigan, Northern Division · July 31, 2025 · No. 2:25-cv-00144

Summary

This United States District Court opinion dismisses a pro se prisoner’s civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The court reviews the plaintiff’s allegations regarding food tampering, inadequate nutrition, medical care, religious meal requests, and administrative segregation. Applying federal pleading standards and the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the court finds the complaints conclusory and lacking specific factual allegations linking each defendant to constitutional violations. Consequently, all First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims are dismissed.

Court
United States District Court, Western District of Michigan, Northern Division
Writing for the Court
Jane M. Beckering
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan
Decision date
July 31, 2025
Docket number
2:25-cv-00144
Procedural posture
Complaint dismissed for failure to state a claim under the Prison Litigation Reform Act and 42 U.S.C. §1997e(c).
Precedential value
nonprecedential
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

civil rightsprisoners rightsfirst amendmentdue processcivil procedure

Practice areas

civil rightscivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the plaintiff's amended complaint states a claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for First Amendment free exercise, Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment, and Fourteenth Amendment due process claims.
  2. Whether the complaint must be dismissed under the Prison Litigation Reform Act for failure to state a claim.

Holdings

  1. The complaint fails to allege specific factual conduct by each named defendant and is dismissed for failure to state a claim.
  2. The First Amendment claim is dismissed because the complaint is conclusory and fails to allege a sincerely held religious belief or factual basis for the alleged injury.
  3. All Eighth Amendment claims are dismissed because the plaintiff’s allegations are conclusory and do not show deliberate indifference or a substantial risk of serious harm.
  4. The due process claim is dismissed because the plaintiff does not allege a protected liberty interest or an atypical and significant hardship.
  5. The complaint is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §§1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b) because it fails to state a claim on any of the asserted constitutional grounds.

Key quotations

The Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s amended complaint for failure to state a claim.

Factual background

The plaintiff, a Michigan state prisoner, was incarcerated at the Alger Correctional Facility. He alleges that on April 22, 2025 a staff member served him food containing toenails, that he was denied a religious (vegan) meal, and that he suffered ongoing headaches and stomachaches. He asserts First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims against several prison officials.

Procedural history

Plaintiff filed the original complaint in the Eastern District of Michigan. The Eastern District transferred the case to this Court. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 28, 2025. The Court granted in forma pauperis status and now dismisses the complaint for failure to state a claim.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…