Hardy 744490 v. Ionia Correctional Facility

• Court: District Court, W.D. Michigan
• Decided: May 30, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00563
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ______

KALEB HARDY,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:25-cv-563

v. Honorable Paul L. Maloney

IONIA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY et al.,

Defendants. ____________________________/ OPINION This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In a separate order, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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 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, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim against Defendants ICF, ICF Food Services, and Miller. The Court will also dismiss, for failure to state a claim, any claims against remaining Defendants Schafer, Way, Shaniburger, and Johnson for violation of MDOC policies. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Schafer, Way, Shaniburger, and Johnson remain in the case. Discussion I. Factual Allegations Plaintiff is presently incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) at the Baraga Correctional Facility (AMF) in Baraga, Baraga County, Michigan. The events about which he complains, however, occurred at the Ionia Correctional Facility (ICF) in Ionia, Ionia County, Michigan. Plaintiff sues ICF, named as IMAX Level 5 Prison, ICF Food Services, named

as IMAX Food Services, and the following ICF staff: Grievance Coordinator K. Miller, and Correctional Officers Unknown Schafer, Unknown Way, Unknown Shaniburger, and Unknown Johnson. Plaintiff alleges that, on March 10, 2025, Plaintiff noticed that Defendants Shaniburger and Schafer were passing out food trays without hair nets or beard guards. (Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.3.) Plaintiff found hair in his food and became sick. (Id.) Plaintiff submitted a grievance; however, his grievance was denied by Defendant Miller. (Id.) Thereafter, Defendants Shaniburger, Way, Johnson, and Shafer, and non-party Officer Mygrant continued to pass out food without hair nets. (Id.) Plaintiff submitted a second grievance, which was also denied by Defendant Millier. (Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that he found hair in each food tray from March 10, 2025, to May 11, 2025, and has been sick multiple times. (Id.) He seeks to bring a lawsuit against Defendants for violating his constitutional rights and for breaking MDOC policy. (Id., PageID.4.) 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.” 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. Id.; 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.” 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)); 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)(ii)). 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); Street v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 102 F.3d 810, 814 (6th Cir. 1996). 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). A. Defendant ICF and ICF Food Services Plaintiff has named ICF as well as its department, ICF Food Services. As this Court noted in Ryan v. Corizon Health Care, No. 1:13-cv-525, 2013 WL 5786934 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 28, 2013), “individual prisons named as Defendants . . . (ICF, IBC, LRF and RGC) are buildings used by the MDOC to house prisoners. They are not the proper public entity for suit” Id. at *7; see also Watson v. Gill, 40 F. App’x 88, 89 (6th Cir. 2002) (“The McCracken County Jail is not a legal entity susceptible to suit . . .[; i]t is a department of the county . . . .”); Caruthers v. Corr. Medical Serv., Inc., No. 1:10-cv-274, 2010 WL 1744881, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 27, 2010) (“The Duane Waters Hospital is not an entity capable of being sued. Rather, it is a building owned by the Michigan

Department of Corrections.”); Poole v. Michigan Reformatory, No. 09-CV-13093, 2009 WL 2960412, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 11. 2009) (“Plaintiff names the Michigan Reformatory, the Earnest C. Brooks Correctional Facility, and the Macomb Correctional Facility as defendants in this action. Those entities, however, are institutions operated by the MDOC and are not . . . legal entities subject to suit . . . .”). Moreover, § 1983 expressly requires that a named defendant be a “person.” See Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). However, neither the State of Michigan nor the MDOC is a “person” within the meaning of § 1983. See Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (holding a state is not a “person”); Parker v. Mich. Dep't of Corr., 65 F. App'x 922, 923

(6th Cir. 2003) (citing Will and holding that the MDOC is not a “person.”). Obviously, because ICF and its departments are not entities separate from the MDOC, they are not “people” under § 1983 either. See, e.g., Tinney v. Detroit Reentry Center, No. 2:19-CV-10894-TGB, 2020 WL 4334964, at *2 (E.D. Mich. July 28, 2020) (stating “[a] state prison facility is not a person...capable of being sued under § 1983”); Ward v. Healthcare Clinic, No. 16-10646, 2016 WL 3569562, at *1 (E.D. Mich. July 1, 2016) (same); Poole, 2009 WL 2960412, at *1 (same). To the extent that Plaintiff named ICF Food Services as a Defendant in an attempt to hold all staff members within that department liable for the alleged violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, he has failed to state a claim for relief. It is a basic pleading essential that a plaintiff attribute factual allegations to particular defendants. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555–61 (holding that, to state a claim, a plaintiff must make sufficient allegations to give a defendant fair notice of the claim). “Summary reference to a single, five-headed ‘Defendants’ [or officers or staff] does not support a reasonable inference that each Defendant is liable . . . .” Boxill v. O’Grady, 935 F.3d 510, 518 (6th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted).

Accordingly, for each of the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against ICF and ICF Food Services. B. Defendant Miller Plaintiff’s sole allegation against Defendant Miller is that Defendant Miller denied Plaintiff’s grievances. (ECF No. 1, PageID.3.) However, the Sixth Circuit has held that, where the defendant’s only involvement in the allegedly unconstitutional conduct is “the denial of administrative grievances or the failure to act,” the defendant cannot be liable under § 1983. Shehee v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295, 300 (6th Cir. 1999). Failing to intervene on a prisoner’s behalf to remedy alleged unconstitutional behavior does not amount to active unconstitutional behavior by a person who merely denies an administrative grievance. Id. Therefore, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s

complaint against Defendant Miller. C. Eighth Amendment Claims Plaintiff alleges that the remaining Defendants Schafer, Way, Shaniburger, and Johnson each served food to prisoners on multiple occasions without wearing hairnets, and that Plaintiff found hair in his food each time, becoming ill on multiple occasions. (ECF No. 1, PageID.3.) The Court will construe these allegations as raising Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Shafer, Way, Shaniburger, and Johnson for unconstitutional conditions of confinement. The Eighth Amendment imposes a constitutional limitation on the power of the states to punish those convicted of crimes. Punishment may not be “barbarous,” nor may it contravene society’s “evolving standards of decency.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 345–46 (1981). The Amendment, therefore, prohibits conduct by prison officials that involves the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Ivey v. Wilson, 832 F.2d 950, 954 (6th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (quoting Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 346). The deprivation alleged must result in the denial of the “minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347; see also Wilson v. Yaklich, 148

F.3d 596, 600–01 (6th Cir. 1998). The Eighth Amendment is only concerned with “deprivations of essential food, medical care, or sanitation” or “other conditions intolerable for prison confinement.” Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 348 (citation omitted). Moreover, “[n]ot every unpleasant experience a prisoner might endure while incarcerated constitutes cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment.” Ivey, 832 F.2d at 954. “Routine discomfort is ‘part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society.’” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992) (quoting Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347). Consequently, “extreme deprivations are required to make out a conditions-of-confinement claim.” Id. For a prisoner to prevail on an Eighth Amendment claim, he must show that he faced a

sufficiently serious risk to his health or safety and that the defendant official acted with “‘deliberate indifference’ to [his] health or safety.” Mingus v. Butler, 591 F.3d 474, 479–80 (6th Cir. 2010) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994)) (applying deliberate indifference standard to medical claims); see also Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35 (1993) (applying deliberate indifference standard to conditions of confinement claims). The deliberate-indifference standard includes both objective and subjective components. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834; Helling, 509 U.S. at 35–37. To satisfy the objective prong, an inmate must show “that he is incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. Under the subjective prong, an official must “know[] of and disregard[] an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Id. at 837. “[I]t is enough that the official acted or failed to act despite his knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm.” Id. at 842. “It is, indeed, fair to say that acting or failing to act with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm to a prisoner is the equivalent of recklessly disregarding that risk.” Id. at 836. The Sixth Circuit has explained that “[i]solated exposure to foreign bodies in food . . . does

not constitute an Eighth Amendment violation.” Balcar v. Smith, No. 17-5159, 2017 WL 3613479, at *2 (6th Cir. July 17, 2017) (affirming dismissal of a claim based on the prisoner being served food containing pieces of insects, rat droppings and hair). However, taking Plaintiff’s allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim concerning exposure to foreign bodies in his food regularly over the course of two months should not be dismissed on screening. Accordingly, the Court will allow Plaintiff to proceed with his Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Schafer, Way, Shaniburger, and Johnson at this stage of the litigation. D. Violations of MDOC Policy Finally, Plaintiff alleges that the actions of Defendants Shafter, Way, Shaniburger, and

Johnson, in refusing to wear hairnets and beard guards, violated MDOC policy. (ECF No. 1, PageID.3, 4.). To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to bring independent claims for these alleged violations, claims under § 1983 can only be brought for “deprivations of rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 924 (1982). Section 1983 does not provide redress for a violation of state law. Pyles v. Raisor, 60 F.3d 1211, 1215 (6th Cir. 1995); Sweeton v. Brown, 27 F.3d 1162, 1166 (6th Cir. 1994). Therefore, Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendants violated MDOC policy fails to state a claim under § 1983. Conclusion The Court will grant Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Having conducted the review required by the PLRA, the Court determines that Defendants ICF, ICF Food Services, and Miller 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 will also dismiss, for failure to state a claim, any claims

against remaining Defendants Schafer, Way, Shaniburger, and Johnson for violation of MDOC policies. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Schafer, Way, Shaniburger, and Johnson remain in the case. An order consistent with this opinion will be entered.

Dated: May 30, 2025 /s/ Paul L. Maloney Paul L. Maloney United States District Judge