Where the plaintiffs claimed that they were exposed to scabies while incarcerated at the Huron Valley Correctional Facility for Women, they have sufficiently pleaded facts to support their Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim, so the complaint should not be dismissed.
“Plaintiffs Machelle Pearson, Maria Sheldon, Keshuna Abcumby, Rebecca Smith, and Rachell Garwood, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated individuals, sued three categories of Defendants: (1) the Michigan Department of Corrections’ (MDOC) employees or former employees Heidi Washington, Kenneth McKee, Jeremy Bush, Lia Gulick, Marti Kay Sherry, Shawn Brewer, David Johnson, Karri Ousterhout, and Kristina Fisher (MDOC Defendants); (2) Corizon Health (Corizon) and former Corizon doctors Jeffrey Bomber, Robert Lacy, Rickey Coleman, Keith Papendick, and Craig Hutchinson (Corizon Defendants); and (3) Wayne State University’s doctors Carmen McIntyre and James Blessman (Wayne State Defendants). Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and gross negligence under Michigan law.
“Plaintiffs are or were incarcerated at the Huron Valley Correctional Facility for Women (WHV) and alleged that they were ‘regularly denied access to adequate medical and mental health care, hygienic conditions, and movement.’ ... As a result, Plaintiffs claimed that they were exposed to scabies that caused ‘horrendous, unbearable itching pain, which in turn, impacted the inflicted’s mental health and led to scarring and additional infections.’ ... Plaintiffs alleged that MDOC operated WHV and employed individuals who irresponsibly handled the scabies outbreakthe MDOC Defendants. See id. at 1378. MDOC contracted with Defendant Corizon and Wayne State University to provide healthcare services for WHV.
“MDOC Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) and alleged that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment or for gross negligence or injunctive relief and that MDOC Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to the constitutional claims. Wayne State Defendants filed a nearly identical motion and alleged the same bases for dismissal and qualified immunity. ... The parties briefed the motions and the Court held a hearing. For the reasons explained below, the Court will deny the motions.
“First, Plaintiffs alleged facts that, if true, support injunctive relief. Next, Plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded facts to support their Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim. Relatedly, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because the rights at issue were clearly established and the complaint pleaded facts that plausibly show that Defendants violated those clearly established rights. Last, Plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded facts in support of the gross negligence claim. As explained below, the Court will not dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims at this stage.
“In sum, Plaintiffs maintain viable Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims based on medical needs and conditions-of-confinement against all Defendants. Plaintiffs also have viable gross negligence claims against MDOC Defendants. Finally, Plaintiffs may proceed on their request for injunctive relief.”
Pearson. v. Michigan Dep't of Corr.; MiLW 02-108004, 21 pages; U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan; Murphy, J.
Click here to read the full opinion
Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.
Most Popular
Comments / 0