Joshua Dewayne Folds v. Paul Jensen et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan conducts preliminary screening under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of a state prisoner's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The court dismisses the claims against Defendant Brege, all official-capacity claims, certain Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims, and permits specified personal-capacity First and Eighth Amendment claims to proceed against other defendants.

Holdings

1. The plaintiff's monetary-damages claims against the defendants in their official capacities failed to state a claim because such claims were treated as claims against the Michigan Department of Corrections and the State of Michigan, which are not persons subject to suit for damages under § 1983 and are protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity.
2. The claims against Brege were dismissed because the complaint alleged no conduct attributable to Brege and did not establish personal involvement, encouragement, authorization, approval, or knowing acquiescence in any unconstitutional conduct.
3. The complaint plausibly stated First Amendment retaliation claims against Martinez and Jensen. Stating an intent to file a grievance was protected conduct, and the alleged threat of harm and placement on restrictive suicide-watch conditions could deter a person of ordinary firmness; the allegations also supported an inference of retaliatory motive.
4. The complaint plausibly stated an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against Martinez based on allegedly closing the cell door on the plaintiff's arm and leaving him trapped for approximately 45 minutes.
5. The complaint plausibly stated Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect or deliberate-indifference-to-personal-safety claims against Martinez and Boykins.
6. The complaint plausibly stated Eighth Amendment medical-care claims against Jensen and Beaumont.
7. The Eighth Amendment claim against Jensen based solely on the plaintiff's two-week placement on suicide watch was dismissed for failure to state a claim.
8. The Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim based on receipt of a fighting misconduct was dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated a First Amendment retaliation claim against Martinez based on threats following the plaintiff's stated intent to file a grievance.
2. Whether the complaint stated a First Amendment retaliation claim against Jensen based on placement on suicide watch after the plaintiff refused to provide a statement against another prisoner.
3. Whether the complaint stated an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against Martinez based on closing a cell door on the plaintiff's arm.
4. Whether the complaint stated Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect or deliberate-indifference claims against Martinez and Boykins based on the risk posed by inmate Rogers.
5. Whether the complaint stated Eighth Amendment medical-care claims against Jensen and Beaumont based on interference with and denial of treatment.
6. Whether the plaintiff's official-capacity claims were barred because they were effectively claims for damages against the State and its officials.
7. Whether the claims against Brege failed for lack of allegations showing personal involvement or supervisory participation.
8. Whether the plaintiff stated an Eighth Amendment claim based on two weeks of suicide watch.
9. Whether receipt of a fighting misconduct stated a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim.

Disposition

other