White v. Derosa

• Court: District Court, W.D. Michigan
• Decided: April 30, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00423
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ______

SIER LAONE WHITE,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:25-cv-423

v. Honorable Sally J. Berens

UNKNOWN DEROSA et al.,

Defendants. ____________________________/ OPINION This is a civil rights action brought by an inmate of the Ingham County Jail under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff consented to proceed in all matters in this action under the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 1, PageID.4.) This case is presently before the Court for preliminary review under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (PLRA), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). The Court is required to conduct this initial review prior to the service of the complaint. See In re Prison Litig. Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131, 1131, 1134 (6th Cir. 1997); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604–05 (6th Cir. 1997). Service of the complaint on the named defendants is of particular significance in defining a putative defendant’s relationship to the proceedings. “An individual or entity named as a defendant is not obliged to engage in litigation unless notified of the action, and brought under a court’s authority, by formal process.” Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 347 (1999). “Service of process, under longstanding tradition in our system of justice, is fundamental to any procedural imposition on a named defendant.” Id. at 350. “[O]ne becomes a party officially, and is required to take action in that capacity, only upon service of a summons or other authority-asserting measure stating the time within which the party served must appear and defend.” Id. (citations omitted). That is, “[u]nless a named defendant agrees to waive service, the summons continues to function as the sine qua non directing an individual or entity to participate

in a civil action or forgo procedural or substantive rights.” Id. at 351. Therefore, the PLRA, by requiring courts to review and even resolve a plaintiff’s claims before service, creates a circumstance where there may only be one party to the proceeding—the plaintiff—at the district court level and on appeal. See, e.g., Conway v. Fayette Cnty. Gov’t, 212 F. App’x 418 (6th Cir. 2007) (“Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the district court screened the complaint and dismissed it without prejudice before service was made upon any of the defendants . . . [such that] . . . only [the plaintiff] [wa]s a party to this appeal.”). Here, Plaintiff has consented to a United States Magistrate Judge conducting all proceedings in this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). That statute provides that “[u]pon the consent

of the parties, a full-time United States magistrate judge . . . may conduct any or all proceedings . . . and order the entry of judgment in the case . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Because the named Defendants have not yet been served, the undersigned concludes that they are not presently parties whose consent is required to permit the undersigned to conduct a preliminary review under the PLRA, in the same way they are not parties who will be served with or given notice of this opinion. See Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532 (5th Cir. 1995) (“The record does not contain a consent from the defendants[; h]owever, because they had not been served, they were not parties to this action at the time the magistrate entered judgment.”).1 Under the 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 Pirchota, Wrigglesworth, and Torrez. The Court will also dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Derosa in his official capacity. Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim against Defendant Derosa in his personal capacity remains in the case. Discussion I. Factual Allegations Plaintiff is presently detained in the Ingham County Jail in Ingham County, Mason, Michigan. The events about which he complains occurred at that facility. Plaintiff sues Ingham

County Sheriff Scott Wrigglesworth, and Deputy/Correctional Officers Unknown Derosa,

1 But see Coleman v. Lab. & Indus. Rev. Comm’n of Wis., 860 F.3d 461, 471 (7th Cir. 2017) (concluding that, when determining which parties are required to consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), “context matters” and the context the United States Supreme Court considered in Murphy Bros. was nothing like the context of a screening dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)); Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503–04 (9th Cir. 2017) (relying on Black’s Law Dictionary for the definition of “parties” and not addressing Murphy Bros.); Burton v. Schamp, 25 F.4th 198, 207 n.26 (3d Cir. 2022) (premising its discussion of “the term ‘parties’ solely in relation to its meaning in Section 636(c)(1), and . . . not tak[ing] an opinion on the meaning of ‘parties’ in other contexts”). Unknown Pirochta, and Unknown Torrez in their official and personal capacities. (Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.2.) Plaintiff alleges that, on April 2, 2023, Defendant Derosa “touched/rubbed” Plaintiff’s inner thigh and “private area.” (Id., PageID.3.) Plaintiff faults Defendant Pirochta for “refusing to do a full investigation” of Plaintiff’s allegations of inappropriate touching and faults Defendant

Torrez for denying Plaintiff an opportunity to “talk to a sergeant” on the day that the inappropriate touching occurred. (Id.) Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Wrigglesworth “is the sheriff in charge of jail operation.” (Id.) As a result of the events described in Plaintiff’s complaint, Plaintiff seeks monetary relief. (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 Section 1983 is a method for vindicating federal rights, not a source of substantive rights itself, the first step in an action under Section 1983 is to identify the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994). A. Official Capacity Claims Plaintiff names Defendants in their official, as well as personal, capacities. (ECF No. 1, PageID.2). Official-capacity lawsuits “generally represent only another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent.” Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165 (1985)

(citing Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690, n. 55 (1978)). Therefore, an official- capacity suit is to be treated as a suit against the entity itself. Id. at 166 (citing Brandon v. Holt, 469 U.S. 464, 471–72 (1985)); see also Matthews v. Jones, 35 F.3d 1046, 1049 (6th Cir. 1994). “Individuals sued in their official capacities stand in the shoes of the entity they represent,” and the suit is not against the official personally. Alkire v. Irving, 330 F.3d 802, 810 (6th Cir. 2003); Graham, 473 U.S. at 165–66. Thus, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in their official capacities are, in reality, claims against Ingham County. Ingham County may not be held vicariously liable for the actions of its employees under Section 1983. See Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 60 (2011); City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 392 (1989); Monell, 436 U.S. at 694. Instead, a county is liable only when its official policy or custom causes the injury. Connick, 563 U.S. at 60. This policy or custom must be the moving force behind the alleged constitutional injury, and the plaintiff must identify the policy or custom, connect it to the governmental entity, and show that his injury was incurred because of the policy or custom. See Turner v. City of Taylor, 412 F.3d 629, 639 (6th Cir. 2005); Alkire, 330

F.3d at 815. A policy includes a “policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated” by the sheriff’s department. See Monell, 436 U.S. at 690. Moreover, the Sixth Circuit has explained that a custom “for purposes of Monell liability must be so permanent and well settled as to constitute a custom or usage with the force of law.” Doe v. Claiborne Cnty., 103 F.3d 495, 507 (6th Cir. 1996). “In short, a ‘custom’ is a ‘legal institution’ not memorialized by written law.” Id. at 508. Here, Plaintiff fails to allege any facts that support an inference that the individual defendants acted pursuant to any policy or custom adopted by Ingham County. Thus, the Court

will dismiss Plaintiff’s official capacity claims against all Defendants for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See Bilder v. City of Akron, No. 92-4310, 1993 WL 394595, at *2 (6th Cir. Oct. 6, 1993) (affirming dismissal of Section 1983 action when plaintiff’s allegation of custom or policy was conclusory, and plaintiff failed to state facts supporting the allegation). B. Claims against Defendants Wrigglesworth, Pirochta, and Torrez Plaintiff claims that, as Sheriff, Defendant Wrigglesworth is responsible for the operation of the Ingham County Jail. (ECF No. 1, PageID.3.) Plaintiff also alleges that, following Defendant Derosa’s actions, Defendant Torrez refused to allow Plaintiff to speak to a sergeant, and Defendant Pirochta failed to conduct an investigation of Plaintiff’s allegations. (Id.) Government officials, such as Defendants Wrigglesworth, Pirochta, and Torrez, 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, 436 U.S. at 691; 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, Section 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. The Sixth Circuit has summarized the minimum required to constitute active conduct by a supervisory official:

“[A] supervisory official’s failure to supervise, control or train the offending individual is not actionable unless the supervisor either encouraged the specific incident of misconduct or in some other way directly participated in it.” Shehee, 199 F.3d at 300 (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted). We have interpreted this standard to mean that “at a minimum,” the plaintiff must show that the defendant “at least implicitly authorized, approved, or knowingly acquiesced in the unconstitutional conduct of the offending officers.” Peatross v. City of Memphis, 818 F.3d 233, 242 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting Shehee, 199 F.3d at 300, and citing Phillips v. Roane Cnty., 534 F.3d 531, 543 (6th Cir. 2008)); see also Copeland v. Machulis, 57 F.3d 476, 481 (6th Cir. 1995) (citing Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 375–76 (1976), and Bellamy v. Bradley, 729 F.2d 416, 421 (6th Cir. 1984)); Leach v. Shelby Cnty. Sheriff, 891 F.2d 1241, 1246 (6th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff fails to allege any facts that would plausibly suggest that Defendants Wrigglesworth, Pirochta, and Torrez authorized, approved, or knowingly acquiesced in the conduct of Defendant Derosa such that it could be said that the actions of these Defendants were the moving force behind Plaintiff’s alleged injury. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendants Wrigglesworth, Pirochta, and Torrez.

C. Defendant Derosa At the time of the events described in his complaint, Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee in the Ingham County Jail. See Ingham County Sheriff’s Office Jail Inmate Locator, https://jail.ingham.org/ViewInmate/96545 (last visited Apr. 23, 2025). Plaintiff alleges that, on April 2, 2024, Defendant Derosa “touched/rubbed” Plaintiff’s inner thigh and “private area.” (ECF No. 1, PageID.3.) Though Plaintiff’s allegations are vague, at this stage, the Court must draw all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff’s favor. Therefore, the Court will liberally construe Plaintiff’s reference to “private area” to include Plaintiff’s penis. See id. (revealing that Plaintiff is a male inmate). When a constitutional claim such as this “is asserted on behalf of a pre-trial detainee, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is the proper starting point.” Griffith v. Franklin

Cnty., 975 F.3d 554, 566 (6th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Until recently, the Sixth Circuit “analyzed Fourteenth Amendment pretrial detainee claims and Eighth Amendment prisoner claims ‘under the same rubric.’” Greene v. Crawford Cnty., 22 F.4th 593, 605 (6th Cir. 2022) (quoting Brawner v. Scott Cnty., 14 F.4th 585, 591 (6th Cir. 2021)). However, in Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015), in considering a pretrial detainee’s claim for the use of excessive force, the Supreme Court concluded that application of the Eighth Amendment standard—requiring that the “detainee must show that the officers were subjectively aware that their use of force was unreasonable”—was not appropriate. 576 U.S. at 391–92. Instead, the Court held that a “detainee must show only that the force purposely or knowingly used against him was objectively unreasonable.” Id. at 396–97. In Hale v. Boyle County, 18 F.4th 845 (6th Cir. 2021), the Sixth Circuit concluded that sexual assault/abuse claims involving physical contact are to be viewed as excessive force claims and evaluated under the Kingsley objective test. Id. at 852–53. The court recognized that “sexual

abuse of inmates” is generally “sufficiently serious” to implicate the objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim and, therefore, concluded that the question before the court was whether the encounter was consensual. Id.at 853 (quoting Rafferty v. Trumbull Cnty., Ohio, 915 F.3d 1087 (6th Cir. 2019)). Taking Plaintiff’s allegations as true, as is required at this stage, the Court can reasonably infer that the encounter was not consensual. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim against Defendant Derosa in his personal capacity cannot be dismissed on screening. Conclusion Having conducted the review required by the PLRA, the Court determines that Wrigglesworth, Pirochta, and Torrez 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, Plaintiff’s official capacity claims against Defendant Derosa. Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim against Defendant Derosa in his personal capacity remains in the case. An order consistent with this opinion will be entered.

Dated: April 30, 2025 /s/ Sally J. Berens SALLY J. BERENS United States Magistrate Judge