Case 2:03-cv-70234-LPZ Document 1 Filed 01/21/2003 Page 1 of 18

"
ORJGJNAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

JOHN T. THOMPSON, BETTINA SCHRECK,

GERALD L. HESSELL, DONALD WARD,

Case No. ==-:-:-::-::-__-

KENNETH ALEXANDER, HENRY TORREZ, and SILAS T. MCADOO, on behalf of themselves

Hon. [[AWR~~ fF!c:ZA1f~OlFf

and others similarly situated,

•

CJ.)

UIIAdISTRATF. JUDGE R. ST~N WHALEN

Plaintiffs, IV • COMPLAINT

-...J

(Class Action)

v.

WILLIAM OVERTON, Director, Michigan

Department of Corrections, in his official capacity;

GEORGE PRAMSTALLER, M.D., Director of

Bureau ofHealth Services, Michigan Department of

Corrections, in his official capacity; CORRECTIONAL:

MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., and DR. CRAIG HUTCHINSON, M.D., Director of Correctional

o w

Medical Services Inc., in his official capacity,

'~-- -n

Defendants. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

N r
.- ron
' .

,,,::>loClO~&

d-<;'t,?O~

ISO\ lo:,

I:,'t :;J-d-J CJ?

Plaintiffs John T. Thompson, Bettina Schreck, Gerald L. Hessell, Donald Ward, ~enneth

;:lloq~ 79 IY7~d1

;l'-iILigs;

Alexander, Henry Torrez, and Silas T. McAdoo, on behalfof themselves and all others similarly

situated, by their attorneys, for their complaint state the following:

I. NATUREOFTHECLATMS

1. This is a prisoners' civil rights class action for declaratory and injunctive relief against

defendants William Overton, Director, Michigan Departmcnt of Corrections ("MDOC"), George

Pramstaller, MDOC's Director of Bureau of Health Services, Correctional Medical Services, Inc.

("CMS"), and Dr. Craig Hutchinson, CMS's director. Plaintiffs' and plaintiff class claims arise

- - - - - - - - - _ _ Case 2:03-cv-70234-LPZ Document 1 _._ _ F.i.l.e..d....0. 1/2..1/20•0.. 3......P...age 2 of 18
out of the inadequate medical care provided them while incarcerated in various MDOC prison facilities throughout the state.
2. This class action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article 1, § 16 of the Constitution of the State of Michigan. It seeks only declaratory and equitable relieffrom defendants with respect to the conditions of plaintiffs' confinement within the MDOC, which conditions constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Article 1, § 16 of the Constitution of the State of Michigan.
3. The heart of this complaint is that the defendants have been, and continue to be, in violation of the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment in that, by policy, custom and practice, they arc deliberately indifferent to plaintiffs' serious medical needs by failing to provide adequate testing and treatment for the Hepatitis C Virus ("HCY"). Without the testing and treatment herein requested, plaintiffs and those similarly situated suffer an increased risk of, and actual grave illness and/or death as the result of undetected and/or untreated HCY infection.
4. The Surgeon General of the United States has declared HCY a national epidemic. There arc currently more individuals in the United States infected with HCY than with I-IlY, and the numbers arc increasing rapidly. Already approximately ten thousand people die each year from complications related to HCY, and that number is expected to at least triple in the next few decades. Within prisons, the HCY epidemic is of even greater consequence: it is estimated that between fifteen and forty percent orthe United States' prison population is infected with HCY. Most ofthese people will be released at some point.
2

- - - - Case 2:03-cv-7....0.-2-3..•4--•L..-P-Z. Docum.e. n-t...1 ..Filed 01/21/2003 Page 3 of 18
5. Existing treatments arc most often effective in the early stages of the disease, and, in advanced cascs, arc contraindicated. The public health care expense of treating the disease early is far less than treatment of the disease (and related complications) in its advanced stagcs.
6. Despite the vulnerable nature of the prison population, the HCV tcsting and trcatmcnt of Michigan prisoners is constitutionally defectivc. Defendants' guidelines and protocols for the testing for and treatment on-ICV demonstrate a custom, policy and practice of medical care that, inter alia, improperly excludes most at risk inmatcs from proper testing, and most infccted inmates from proper treatment. Additionally, defendants have a policy, custom and practice of failing to adhere to their own constitutionally deficient testing and treatment protocols. II. .JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES
7. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in that this action arises under the Constitution of the United States, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a), in that plaintiffs seek redress for civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
8. This Court has jurisdiction to grant declaratory and injunctivc relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims based on 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
9. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Michigan because a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to this suit occurred (and arc occurring) within this District.
10. The named plaintiffs have exhausted administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Copies of these Final, Step III, grievance denials arc attached as Exhibit 1.
3

Case 2:03-cv-70234-LPZ Document 1 Filed 01/21/2003 Page 4 of 18
III. PARTIES A. Plaintiffs
11. PlaintiffJohn T. Thompson (136008) has been incarcerated within MDOC since 1993. From July 1998 to March 2001, Mr. Thompson was housed in the Alger Correctional Facility in Munising, Michigan. In March 2001, Mr. Thompson was transferred to Baraga Correctional Facility in Baraga, Michigan. Most recently, he was transferred to Marquette Branch Prison, in Marquette, Michigan.
12. Plaintiff Bettina Schreck (258303) has been inearccrated within MDOC since 1995. Throughout the relevant period she has been housed at the Scott Correctional Facility in Plymouth, Michigan, within the District.
13. Plaintiff Gerald L. Bessell (150163) has been incarcerated within MDOC since 1976. Throughout the relevant period he has been housed in the Saginaw Correctional Facility in Freeland, Michigan.
14. Plaintiff Donald Ward (138224) has been incarcerated within MDOC since 1987. Between 1999 and March 2002, Mr. Ward was housed in the Cooper Street Correctional Facility in Jackson, Michigan, within the District. In March of2002, he was transferred to Camp Cusino Correctional Facility in Shingleton, Michigan, and was later transferred to Hiawatha Correctional Facility in Kincheloe, Michigan, where he currently resides.
IS. Plaintiff Kenneth Alexander (269879) has been incarcerated within MDOC since 1998. From the fall of 1998 until 200 I, due to prison overcrowding, Mr. Alexander was housed in a correctional facility in Virginia. Since 2001, Mr. Alexander has been housed in the Cooper Street Correctional Facility in Jackson Michigan, within the District.
4

Cas-e-2-:0-3--c-v--7-0-23-4--L-P-Z---D-oc-u-m-e-n-t 1---F-il-e-d -01-/-21-/2-0-0-3--P-ag-e 5-of 18
16. Plaintiff Henry Torrez (147429) has been incarcerated within MDOC since 1985. Throughout the relevant period he has been housed in the Thumb Correctional Facility in Lapeer, Michigan.
17. Plaintiff Silas T. McAdoo (241485) has been incarcerated within MDOC since 1994. Throughout the relevant period he has been housed in the Gus Harrison Correctional Facility in Adrian, Michigan, within the District.
B. Defendants 18. Defendant William Overton is the Director of the Michigan Department of Corrections. Defendant Overton is responsible for the eustoms, policies and practices ofMDOC, including those complained of herein, and is capable of commanding performance of the injunctive relief plaintiffs seck. Defendant Overton is sued in his official capacity. 19. Defendant George Pramstaller, M.D., is the Director of Bureau of Health Services, Michigan Department of Corrections. Defendant Pramstaller was at all times relevant to this action responsible for the establishment and implementation of all medical policies, procedures, customs, and practices within MDOC, including those relating to the testing and treatment of HCV. Defendant Pramstaller is sued in his official eapacity. 20. Defendant CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC. (CMS), is and was at all times relevant, a for-profit corporation licensed to do business in Michigan. CMS is obligated under contract to provide managed health eare to MDOC prisoners and, upon information and belief, partieipates in the formation of health care policies, customs and practices within MDOC, and in implementing same.
5

Case 2:03-cv-702...3..4. _-LP._Z -_D.o_cu-m-e-nt 1 Filed 01/21/2003 Page 6 of 18
21. Defendant Dr. Craig Hutchinson, M.D., is the Director of Correctional Medical Services. Defendant Hutchinson was at all times relevant to this action responsible for the care and treatment provided by defendant CMS to plaintiffs and, upon information and belief, participates in the formation of health care policies, customs and practices within MDOC, and in implementing same. IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
A. The Hepatitis C Virus 22. The Hepatitis C virus is a blood borne virus that causes liver disease. It is a rapidly growing national epidemic. It is currently the most common blood borne infection in the United States. Over four million Americans - or 1.8% of the United States popUlation - arc currently infected. 23. About eighty-five percent ofHCV-infccted individuals develop chronic hepatitis, and at least twenty percent of these develop irreversible cirrhosis within two decades of the onset of infection. Chronic HCV infection also puts one at significantly increased risk for liver cancer ("HCC"). 24. Approximately ten thousand Americans die from complications due to HCV each year. HCV is one of the most common reasons for liver transplant in the United States. 25. HCV is spread primarily through contact with the blood of an infected person. Factors that indicate an increased risk of infection with HCV include: (i) being a child born to an HCVpositive woman; (ii) service in the armed forces, particularly Vietnam veterans; (iii) receiving blood, blood products or an organ transplant before 1992; (iv) long-term kidney dialysis; (v)
6

Case 2:03-cv-70234-LPZ Document 1 Filed 01/21/2003 Page 7 of 18
exposure to HeV positive blood or body fluids, including during scx; (vi) a history oftattoos or body piercings; and (vii) a history of IV drug usc.
26. Thc majority of people infected with HeV arc asymptomatic. Around one-third of infected individuals develop symptoms ofliver disease including malaise, weakness, anorexia, and jaundice. Many patients will become symptomatic only at the time of development of advanced liver diseasc when existing treatments arc most often not effective or, in many advanced cases, contraindicated.
27. After initial exposure, HeV can be detected in blood within one to three weeks and is present at the onset of symptoms. Antibodies to Hev arc detected by enzyme immunoassay ("EIA") in onlyfifty to seventy percent of patients at the onset of symptoms, increasing to more than ninety percent after three months.
28. Within an average of four to twelve weeks, liver cell injury caused by HeV is often, though not always, manifested by elevation of serum alanine aminotransferase ("ALT") levels.
29. Testing for serum ALT levels is the most inexpensive and noninvasive, but relatively insensitive, means of assessing disease activity.
B. HCV in Michigan's Prisons 30. Prisons arc a locus for HeV infection and transmission. 31. Defendants usc HeV testing and treatment protocols that, on their face, fall far short of nationally and locally accepted medical standards for the basic and humane care and treatment of HeV infected persons. These testing and treatment protocols, on their face, constitute deliberate indifference to plaintiffs' serious medical needs.
7

Case 2:03-cv-70234-LPZ Document 1 Filed 01/21/2003 Page 8 of 18
32. Defendants also have a policy, custom and practicc offailing to adhere to their constitutionally defective HCV tcsting and trcatment protocols and have, in some cases, failed to evcn notify inmates of their HCV positive status.
33. Defendants also fail to educate inmates about I-ICV, its causes, methods of transmission, conscquences of infection, and available methods of treatment.
34. While incarcerated, infected prisoners who are untested and thus unaware ofthcir positive HCV-status unknowingly pass the infection to each other, to prison guards, and to health care workers. When they are released, they may and do unknowingly infect people in thc community.
35. Further, prisoners - both those who are aware of their HCV-positive status and those who are uninformcd - do not receive adequate treatment.
36. Defendants' policies, procedures, customs, and praetices described herein are likely to persist unless enjoined by this Court. V. CLASS ALLEGATIONS
37. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf ofthemsclves and all others similarly situated pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2) and (\)(A).
38. Plaintiffs request that the Court certify a class consisting of all persons who arc presently imprisoned with MDOC and who meet the following conditions:
(a) her or his blood work or medical or social history indicates that she/he may be at risk for HCV;
(b) she or he is not currently being appropriately tcsted and/or treated for HCV; and
(c) she or he has not declined further testing and/or treatment for HCV.
8

Case 2:03-cv-70234-LPZ Document 1 Filed 01/21/2003 Page 9 of 18
•
39. This class is properly maintainable as a class action under Rule 23(a) because the requirements of Rule 23(a) are met, as follows:
(a) The members of the class arc too numerous to be joined in one action. At the end of 2002, Michigan's inmate population exceeded 49,000. National and other state estimates suggest that 7,350 -19,600 of these inmates (fifteen to forty percent) may be infected with HCV, and many more are likely to have elevated risk factors for HCV infection that indicate HCV testing would be appropriate. Joinder of all class members is therefore impracticable.
(b) Common questions of law and fact exist as to all class members and dominate those questions that only affect individual members. These common questions include, but are not limited to:
1. whether defendants' HCV testing and treatment protocols, on their face, constitute deliberate indifference to plaintiffs' serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, § 16 of the Constitution of the State of Michigan; and
11. whether defendants have by policy, custom or practice failed to follow their own HCV testing and treatment protocols and, if so, whether this failure constitutes deliberate indifference to plaintiffs' serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, § 16 of the Constitution of the State of Michigan; (c) Plaintiffs' claims arc typical of claims of the class. All of the
9

Case 2:03-cv-70234-LPZ Document 1 Filed 01/21/2003 Page 10 of 18
•
named plaintiffs arc infected with HCY, and have been denied adequate testing and/or treatment by defendants. The claims of the named plaintiffs arc based on the same legal theory as those of the entire class. The named plaintiffs and plaintiff class both seck declaratory and injunctive relief only.
(d) Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. The interests of the class representatives arc consistent with those of the class members. Plaintiffs' counsel knows of no conflicts of interest among class members that would affect this litigation nor of any conflicts of interest between the attorneys and cluss members. Moreover, class counsel is comprised of experienced attorneys who have no eon11ict of interest. Plaintiffs' counsel have the experience and ability to prosecute this case vigorously.
40. This action is properly maintainable under Rule 23(b)(2) because defendants have acted or have refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class as a whole, thereby making class-wide declaratory and injunctivc relief appropriate. This case involves a challenge to the defendants' customs, policies and/or practices, including, but not limited to, defendants' HCY testing and treatment protocols and their implementation. Defendants' refusal to provide adequate testing and treatment has generally, and in important aspects, similarly affected the entire proposed class.
41. This class action is also maintainable under Rule 23(b)(I)(A). Separate actions would create a risk of inconsistent adjudications with respect to individual members of the class, which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for defendants. Defendants could be subject to varying, and possibly conflicting, injunctive and/or declaratory orders.
10
---------------

Case 2:03-cv-70234-LPZ Document 1 Filed 01/21/2003 Page 11 of 18
42. Class action treatment provides a fair and efficient method of adjudication for the controversy herein described, which affects a large number of people for whom joinder is impracticable. This class action provides an effective method whereby the enforcement of the rights of plaintiffs and the class members can be fairly managed without unnecessary expense or duplication. VI. ALLEGATIONS OF NAMED PLAINTIFFS
A. John T. Thompson 43. Mr. Thompson was diagnosed with HCY in 1998. 44. Mr. Thompson has not received routine testing to determine ifhis ALT levels arc elevated. Defendants have failed to follow their own protocol in this regard. 45. When Mr. Thompson's ALT levels are tested, they arc consistently elevated. 46. In spite of his elevated ALT levels and his requests, Mr. Thompson has been unlawfully denied referral for ultra-sound and liver biopsy and evaluation for treatment. Mr. Thompson has also not received adequate information and education about HCY.
B. Bettina Schreck 47. Ms. Schreck was diagnosed with HCY in September 1995, when she was in the Macomb County Jail. 48. During the last four years, Ms. Schreck has experienced tremendous HCY-related pain. Her symptoms include: severe and stabbing pains in her right side, pains that radiate down her back, swollen feet and legs, blurred vision, photosensitivity, gastrointestinal problems, loss of appetite, exhaustion, kidney pain, bladder cramps, and swollen neck glands.
11

Case 2:03-cv-70234-LPZ Document 1 Filed 01/21/2003 Page 12 of 18
49. Despite having tested positive for HCV, and having elevated ALT levels, she has not reccived a liver biopsy or ultrasound to detcnnine the extent of the damage to her liver and treatment options. Moreover, unless Ms. Schreck fonnally grieves, defendants do not provide her with the monitoring and testing called for by their current policy.
50. Defendants have also denied Ms. Schreck the appropriate dietary accommodations that her condition requires.
51. Defendants are unlawfully denying Ms. Schreck basic and humane medical care and treatment for, and infonnation and education about her serious medical needs.
C. Gerald Hessel! 52. Mr. Hessell was diagnosed with HCV in 1998. 53. Mr. Hessell has experienced tremendous I-ICV-related pain. His symptoms include mild to sharp pains in his upper right quadrant, extreme fatigue, loss of appetite resulting in a weight loss of nearly forty pounds in approximately sixteen months. 54. Mr. Hessell's ALT levels have remained above 148 - well above the upper nonnallimitfor over twenty months. 55. Despite his elevated ALT levels and significant symptoms, Mr. Hessell has not received adequate follow-up testing and/or trcatment. Indeed, Mr. Hessell has not rcceived treatment of any kind for HCV. 56. Dr. Aldabagh, a CMS physician, told Mr. I-Iessell that the cost of the testing was a factor in Mr. Hessell's inadequate monitoring and treatment. 57. Defendants have unlawfully denied Mr. Hessell adequate testing and treatment for and education and infonnation about his serious medieal needs.
12

Case 2:03-cv-70234-LPZ Document 1 Filed 01/21/2003 Page 13 of 18
D. Donald Ward 58. Mr. Ward was diagnosed with HCV in 1994 and his diagnosis was confirmed in August 2000. His ALT levels have been elevated for over three years, and he has not been tested at regular intervals. 59. Despite his condition, defendants have denied Mr. Ward a liver biopsy or ultrasound, and any treatment these tests might demonstrate is medically necessary. Mr. Ward has not received adequate education about HCV. 60. Defendants have unlawfully denied Mr. Ward adequate testing and treatment for, and education and information about his serious medical needs.
E. Kenneth Alexander 61. Mr. Alexander was diagnosed with HCV in 1998. 62. Defendants have failed to conduct blood draws in two-month intervals to test Mr. Alexander's ALT levels. 63. Defendants have unlawfully denied Mr. Alexander the testing his condition requires, including a liver biopsy and ultrasound, and the treatment, if any, those tests might demonstrate is medically necessary. Mr. Alexander has also not received adequate education and information about HCV.
F. Henr)! Torrez 64. Mr. Torrez was diagnosed with HCV in June 1996. 65. Mr. Torrez's ALT levels have been abnormally elevated since January of 1990. 66. In January 2002, Mr. Torrez was approved for Hepatitis C treatment. Treatment began six months later on May 30, 2002.
13

Case _2..:0..3.-_c.v_--70-23-4-L-PZ- -Do-cum-en-t 1- -Fil-ed-01/-21-/20-03 -P-ag-e 1-4 o-f 1-8 - - - - -
67. MDOC's Bureau of Health Care discontinued Mr. Torrez's Hepatitis C on June 24, 2002, due to Mr. Torrez's alleged depression. The Bureau based this determination on a Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) Scale completed by a nurse that misrepresented Mr. Torrez's mental condition. The discontinuation of Mr. Torrez's treatment was wrongly predicated on false medical conclusions.
68. Moreover, even if the CES-D was accurate, it was a medically inappropriate basis for discontinuing his treatment.
69. Defendants have unlawfully denied Mr. Torrez continued treatment for his Hepatitis C, and information and education about his serious medieal needs.
G. Silas McAdoo 70. Mr. MeAdoo was diagnosed with HCV in 1995. 71. Mr. MeAdoo's symptoms include: dark urine, fatigue, aches, flu-like symptoms, low grade fever, mild abdominal pain, and psychiatric symptoms believed to be caused by increased blood ammonia levels due to liver disease. 72. Mr. MeAdoo's ALT levels have been abnormalIy elevated since 1995. 73. Defendants have unlawfully denied Mr. McAdoo information and education about his serious medical needs, a liver biopsy and ultrasound, regular monitoring, and any course of treatment that these tests might demonstrate is medically necessary for his serious medical needs. ., VII. CLAIMS 74. By employing HCV testing and treatment protocols that are medically inappropriate and insufficient on their face in that they do not reflect the community standard of care, defendants, acting under color of state law, by policy, custom, andlor practice, have demonstrated deliberate
14

Case 2:03-cv-70234-LPZ Document 1 Filed 01/21/2003 Page 15 of 18
indifference to plaintiffs' serious medical needs, subjecting plaintiffs and those similarly situated to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution as actionable under 42 U.S.C § 1983. These same acts also violate Article 1, § 16 of the Constitution ofthe State ofMichigan.
75. By failing to abide by their own deficient HCV testing and treatment protocols, defendants, acting under color of state law, by policy, custom, and/or practice, have demonstrated deliberate indifference to plaintiffs' serious medical needs, subjecting plaintiffs and those similarly situated to cruel and unusual punishment in violation ofthc Eighth Amendment ofthe Unitcd Statcs Constitution as actionable undcr 42 U.S.C § 1983. These same acts also violate Article 1, § 16 of the Constitution of the State of Michigan.
76. By failing to cducate prisoners about HCV, by denying them the right to spccial association by forming support and othcr groups rcgarding thc disease, and by failing to take reasonable precautions to prevcnt the further transmission of the disease, defendants, acting under color of state law, by policy, custom, and/or practice, have demonstrated delibcratc indifference to plaintiffs' serious medical needs, subjecting plaintiffs and those similarly situated to crucl and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amcndment of the United States Constitution as actionable under 42 U.S.C § 1983. These same acts also violate Article 1, § 16 of the Constitution ofthe State ofMichigan.
15

Case 2:03-cv-70234-LPZ Document 1 Filed 01/21/2003 Page 16 of 18
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court:
a. Certify this action as a class action; b. Declare that defendants' HCV testing and treatment protocol on its face violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, § 16 of the Constitution of the State ofMichigan; c. Declare that defendants' failure to abide by its present testing and treatment protocol violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, § 16 of the Constitution of the State of Michigan; d. Enter a permanent injunction requiring defcndants to adopt and fully implement within 120 days the Hepatitis C Prevention, Testing, Treatment, Education and MOllitoring Protocol (attached hereto as Exhibit 2), which rcpresents the community standard of care for the disease, or adopt other appropriate measures; and e. Award plaintiffs their costs and fees of this action, including their attorneys fees;
16

Case 2:03-cv-70234-LPZ Document 1 Filed 01/21/2003 Page 17 of 18

Together with such other, further and different relief that this Court deems just and proper.

Dated: January 21, 2003
try ~ ;%JS
Kary L. Moss (P49759) Michael J. Steinberg (P43085) Attomeys for Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union
Fund ofMichigan 60 W. Hancock Street Detroit, MI 48201 (313) 578-6800

Respectfully Submitted,
David A. Santa roee 61367) Christine Vaughn (student attorney) Michael Bowling (student attorney) Raphael Goldman (student attorney) Attorneys for Plaintiffs Clinical Law Programs University of Michigan Law School 801 Monroe Street, 363 L.R. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 (734) 763-4319

Daniel E. Manville (P39731) Daniel E. Manville, P.C. Cooperating Attorney, American Civil
Liberties Union Fund of Michigan Attorney for Plaintiffs P.O. Box 20321 Ferndale, MI 48220 (248) 547-2217

17

Case 2:03-cv-70234-LPZ Document 1 Filed 01/21/2003 Page 18 of 18
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SEE CASE FILE FOR ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS OR PAGES THAT WERE NOT SCANNED
--.- -

 
 Case 2:03-cv-70234-LPZ Document 18 Filed 07/01/2003 Page 1 of 10

•
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOHN T. THOMPSON, BETTINA SCHRECK, GERALD L. HESSELL, DONALD WARD, KENNETH ALEXANDER, HENRY TORREZ, and SILAS T. McADOO, on behalfofthemselves and others similarly situated,

{,::

d . \.-)

-

Plaintiffs,

CASE N . 03-70234

v.

HON. LA

. ATKOFF

WILLIAM OVERTON, Director, Michigan Department of Corrections, in his official capacity; GEORGE PRAMSTALLER, M.D., Director of Bureau ofHealth Services, Michigan Department of Corrections, in his official capacity; CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., And DR. CRAIG HUTCHINSON, M.D., Director of Correctional Medical Services Inc., in his official capacity,

Defendants.
----------------------------~/
OPINION AND ORDER

AT A SESSION of said Court, held in the United States Courthouse,
'JUl OlZUQ3 in the City ofDetroit, State of Michigan, on

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Defendants CMS and Hutchinson's Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs responded and Defendants CMS and Hutchinson replied. The Court finds that the parties have adequately set forth the relevant law and facts, and that oral argument would not aid in the disposition of the instant motion. See E.D. MICH. LR 7. 1(e)(2). Accordingly, thc Court ORDERS

Case 2:03-cv-70234-LPZ Document 18 Filed 07/01/2003 Page 2 of 10
•
that the motion be decided on the briefs submitted. For the reasons set forth herein, Defendants CMS and Hutchinson's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
II. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs are prisoners who are currently incarccrated by the Michigan Departmcnt of Corrections (hereinafter "MDOC"). The named Defendants include the Director of the MDOC, as well as individuals and entities that provide mcdical scrvices to prisoners who are incarccrated at MDOC facilities. Each Plaintiff is incarcerated at a differcnt MDOC facility, and collectively, Plaintiffs allege that they represent all similarly incarcerated individuals. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; in particular, they allege that their Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment was violated by Defendants, who are state actors acting undcr color of state law. In addition, Plaintiffs also allege a violation of Article 1, § 16 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963, which is substantially identical to the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Plaintiffs state that they arc all infected with the Hepatitis C Virus (hereinafter "HCV"), and that Defendants have been deliberately indifferent towards Plaintiffs' serious medical needs by failing to provide adequate testing and treatmcnt for those prisoncrs infected with the virus. Specifically, Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges the following: first, Defendants' HCV testing and treatment protocol does not meet nationally recognized standards, and is constitutionally deficient; and second, Defendants have a policy of often failing to follow their own deficient protocol. Each individual Plaintiff alleges that he or she was diagnosed with HCV, and that Defendants fail cd to treat him or her pursuant to Defendants' deficient protocol; Plaintiffs allege that the care that they
2

Case 2:03-cv-70234-LPZ Document 18 Filed 07/01/2003 Page 3 of 10
•
would have received under Defendants' deficient protocol would have been better than the total lack
of treatment that they in fact receivcd. Plaintiffs state that they bring this action on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated individuals; in short, Plaintiffs allege that they arc
representatives ofa class ofincarcerated individuals who have also been subjected to Defendants'
deliberate indifference.
Defendants Correctional Mcdieal Services, Inc., (hereinafter "Defendant CMS") and
Defendant Dr. Craig Hutchinson, (hereinafter "Defendant Hutchinson") who is a director of
Defendant CMS, provide medical services to incarcerated inmates. Defendants CMS and
Hutchinson bring this current Motion to Dismiss based on the following arguments:
1. Although Plaintiffs appear to have proeecded through Step III of the MDOC grievance procedure, Plaintiffs failed to attach to their Complaint any document other than the resolution page of their Step III review. Thus, Plaintiffs failed to describe the nature of the grievance filed, thus making it impossible to determine whether said Defendants had been given an opportunity to respond to the issues raised in Plaintiffs' Complaint.
2. Plaintiffs present no evidence that they ever filed a grievance against either Defendant CMS or Defendant Hutchinson, and in fact, Plaintiffs never filed a grievance against either ofsaid Defendants.
3. Plaintiffs failed to file a grievance regarding all of the claims in their Complaint, thus Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their remedies.
4. Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants eMS and Hutchinson that arise under the Michigan Constitution arc barred by Michigan law.
5. Plaintiffs fail to state a claim of deliberate indifference to their serious medical condition by Defendants CMS and Hutchinson.
6. Plaintiffs only allegation ofdeliberate indifference is based merely on a difference in medical opinion, and docs not rise to a constitutional violation. Many of Defendants CMS and Hutchinson's arguments arc based on 42 U.S.C. § 1997e.
Under federal law,a prisoner is required to exhaust all administrative remedics before he or she may
3

Case 2:03-cv-70234-LP-Z------D---o-c- u-m-en-t 1-8 - -Fil-ed 0.--7-/0-1-/2-00-3 -P-ag-e 4 of 10
•
file an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Prior to bringing this cause ofaction, each individual Plaintifffiled an administrative grievance with thc MDOC. Under MDOC regulations, there arc three steps to the grievance process, with the final review being entitled "Step III." Defendants argue, and Plaintiffs implicitlyconcede, that none ofthe individual Plaintiffs in this action filed a grievance alleging that Defendants' HCV testing and treatment protocol is constitutionally deficient.
The Court shall evaluate said Defendants' arguments in the most logical ordcr.
III. LEGAL STANDARD A motion brought pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which reliefmay be granted tests the legal sufficiency of Plaintiffs' claims. The Court must accept as true all factual allegations in the pleadings, and any ambiguities must be resolved in Plaintiffs' favor. See Jackson v. Ric1zards Med. Co., 961 F.2d 575, 577-78 (6th Cir. 1992). The Court, however, need not accept as true legal conclusions or unwarranted factual inferences. See Morgan v. Church's Fried Chicken, 829 F.2d 10, 12 (6th Cir. 1987). The Court may properly grant a motion to dismiss when no set offacts exists that would allow Plaintiffs to recover. See Carter by Carter v. Cornwall, 983 F.2d 52, 54 (6th Cir. 1993).
IV. ANALYSIS In their motion to dismiss, Defendants CMS and Hutchinson give six reasons for why Plaintiffs' Complaint should be dismissed. Defendants CMS and Hutchinson's first three arguments, however, run together. Basically, Defendants CMS and Hutchinson argue that Plaintiffs arc required
4

Case 2:03-cv-70234-LPZ Document 18 Filed 07/01/2003 Page 5 of 10
•
to exhaust the MDOC grievance procedure before they are permitted to bring an action in this Court. In addition, Plaintiffs are required to specifically plead facts that demonstrate that thcy have exhausted the MDOC grievance procedure for each of the claims in their Complaint. Defendants CMS and Hutchinson assert that Plaintiffs failed to specifically plead such facts. Based on this assertion, Defendants CMS and Hutchinson make the following three arguments: 1) Plaintiffs only proof that they submittcd their claims to the MDOC gricvanee procedure are the resolution pagcs for the final, Step III review of each Plaintiff's grievance, and that such resolution pages do not list each Plaintiff's individual grievances; 2) similarly, Defendants CMS and Hutchinson were never named in any ofthese grievances; and 3) there is no proofthat each claim by each individual Plaintiff has been fully exhaustcd.
Said Defendants argument regarding failure to cxhaust shall now be applied to Defendant's deficient protocol claim. A. Deficient Protocol
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) states that a prisoner may not bring a cause ofaction regarding "prison conditions" until "such administrative remedies as arc available are exhausted." 42 U.S.C. § 1997c(a); see also Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 520 (2002). The Sixth Circuit stated that the reasons for this exhaustion requirement is to allow States an opportunity to exercise their authority over their own prison systems, and to give States a chance to utilize their expertise over grievances that arise on a routine basis. See Brown v. Toombs, 139 F.3d 1102, 1103 (6th Cir. 1998) (quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 491-92 (1973»; see also Porter, 534 U.S. at 524-25 ("... Congrcss afforded eorrcetions officials time and opportunity to address complaints intemallybefore allowing the initiation of a federal case."). Consequently, the Court finds that Plaintiffs were
5

Case 2:03-cv-70234-LPZ Document 18 Filed 07/01/2003 Page 6 of 10
•
required to exhaust their administrative remedies-specifically, the MDOC grievance proeedurebefore filing this action.
As mentioned above, no individual Plaintiff filed a grievance regarding the allegedly constitutionally deficient HCV testing and treatment protocol. Plaintiffs argue, however, that their failure to file a grievance on this issue is excused because § 1997e only requires them to exhaust "available" administrative remedies. Plaintiffs contend that they had no administrative remedies available to them for their deficient protocol claim because the MDOC's grievance policy only permits prisoners to file grievances regarding "the application of a policy or procedure if it affects him/her personally... ," and docs not permit a prisoner to "grieve the content of policy or procedure." MDOC PD 03.02.130(E). Similarly, the MDOC's policy states that a prisoner may not grieve "the content of administrative rules, policy directives, operating procedures and Director's Office Memoranda;" or "Issues which affect the entire prisoner population or significant numbers ofprisoners." MDOC PD 03.02.l30(F)(1) & (4). In short, Plaintiffs argue that, pursuant to MDOC policy, they wcrc not permitted to file a grievance challenging Defendants' policy regarding the testing and treatment ofI-ICV, which is the crux of their deficient protocol claim, and that they cannot be required to exhaust an administrative remedy that is not available. See, e.g., Miller v. Norris, 247 F.3d 736, 740 (8th Cir. 2001) (holding that a prisoner is not required to exhaust all remedies, but only ones that are available).
The Court is neither persuaded by Plaintiffs' argument, nor with the cases that Plaintiffs rely upon. The Supreme Court in Parler makes clear that prisoners must give prison officials an opportunity to remedy any complaint. This is true even if the grievance procedure is not '''plain, speedy, or effective,'" and even if"the prisoner seeks relief not available in grievance proceedings.
6

Case 2:03-cv-70234-LPZ ....D.--o.c. u-m-_e._n-t-_18.._ ..F...i.l.e_.d..•0-7/_ 01/.20_03- -Pa-ge 7 of 10
• . .." See Porter 534 U.S. at 524 (citing Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 739-40 (2001». Commenting on the scope of§ 1997e, the Supreme Court remarked that "exhaustion is now required for all 'action[s] ... brought with respect to prison conditions. '" See id. at 525 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a». Therefore, given the breadth of§ 1997e, the purposes behind it, as well as the Supreme
Court's interpretation of it, the Court finds that Plaintiffs were required to present their deficient protocol claim in a form of a grievance to the proper MDOC officials, even if there is reason to presume that such a grievance will be denied.
There is no dispute that Plaintiffs did not grieve the MDOC's protocol for testing and treating HCV. Plaintiffs do not even attempt to argue that they have exhausted their state law remedies for their deficient protocol claims. Accordingly, the MDOC was never given an opportunity to respond to such a grievance, even if such a grievance would presumably be denied. Therefore, Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies for their deficient protocol claims. B. Total Exhaustion
Defendants argue that because Plaintiffs failed to completely exhaust their deficient protocol claim that Plaintiffs' Complaint should be dismissed without prejudice in its entirety. Defendants argue that a number of courts, including the Eighth Circuit and the Western District of Michigan, have held that if a prisoner fails to completely exhaust each of his or her claims, then the prisoner's complaint should be dismissed. See Graves v. Norris, 218 F.3d 884 (8th Cir. 2000); see also Smeltzer v. Hook, 235 F. Supp. 2d 736 (W.O. Mich. 2002). This is known as the "total exhaustion" rule.
There is a debate between a number ofU.S. district courts as to the total exhaustion rule, and whether it comports with Congress' intent in drafiing § 1997e(a). Compare Smeltzer v. Hook, 235
7

Case 2:03-cv-70234-LPZ Document 18 Filed 07/01/2003 Page 8 of 10
• F. Supp. 2d 736 (W.D. Mich. 2002) with Hattley v. Goord, 2003 WL 1700435 (S.D.N.Y. March 27, 2003). The Court finds Smeltzer to be more persuasive. In particular, upon examining the statutory language, the Court notes that § 1997e(a) states: "No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 ofthis titlc, or any other fcderallaw, by a prisoner confined in anyjail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as arc available arc exhausted." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (emphasis added). An action is distinct from a claim for rclief. According to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and action is commenced when a party files a complaint. See FED. R. CIY. P. 3. There may bc several claims for relief in a particular action, howevcr. See FED. R. CIY. P. 8. Congress did not usc the word "claim," but rather, it uscd the word "action," which indicates to the Court that a prisoner must exhaust all claims before he or she may file an action. See Graves, 218 F.3d at 885; Smeltzer, 235 F. Supp. 2d at 743-44. Therefore, Plaintiffs' action shall be dismisscd without prejudice, thereby allowing Plaintiffs to exhaust their unexhausted remedics. As for Plaintiffs' argument that Smcltzcr is contrary to Sixth Circuit precedent, the Court is not pcrsuaded. Plaintiffs' argument relics on Hartsfield v. Vidor, 199 F.3d 305 (6th Cir. 1999) and Burton v. Jones, 321 F.3d 569 (6th Cir. 2003). In Burton, the Sixth Circuit stated: "[T]heHartsfield holding illustratcs that a prisoner's lawsuit, which alleges multiple claims against multiple defendants, is not vulnerable to dismissal under § 1997c(a) simply because the prisoncr has failed to exhaust a particular claim as to a specific dcfendant." Burton, 321 F.3d at 575 n.2. Thc Court notes, however, the issue of total exhaustion was not before the Sixth Circuit in either Hartsfield, or Burton, and that the Sixth Circuit's comments on the topic arc merely dicta. Further, unpublished decisions by the Sixth Circuit indicatcs that the Sixth Circuit has not definitively hcld that it has
8

Case 2:03-cv-70234-LPZ Document 18 Filed 07/01/2003 Page 9 of 10
•
rejected the total exhaustion rule. Compare McElhalley v. Elo, No. 98-2173, 2000 WL 1477498, at *3 (6th Cir. Sept. 25,2000) with Kemp v. JOlles, 42 Fed. Appx. 744, 745 (6th Cir. 2002). In fact, the Sixth Circuit has explicitly stated that it has decided to "reserve to another day" the question of whether a prisoner's complaint that contains both exhausted and unexhausted elaims should be dismissed in its entirety. See Klluckles EI v. Toombs, 215 F.3d 640, 641-42 (6th Cir. 2000).
Therefore, the Court finds that because Plaintiffs' Complaint contains unexhausted claims, and because Complaints by prisoners with unexhausted claims should be dismissed without prejudice, this Court finds that this action should be dismissed, and that it is unnecessary for the Court to decide any other issues at this time.
V. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Defendants CMS and Hutchinson's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.' The Court HEREBY ORDERS that this action shall be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to allow Plaintiffs to properly exhaust their claims. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:_.l_UL_01_'2.003
'Even though Defendants William Overton and George Pramstaller did not join in Defendants' CMS and Hutchinson's Motion to Dismiss, the Court finds, for reasons set forth above, that Plaintiffs' Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety.
9

Case 2:03-cv-70234-LPZ Document 18 Filed 07/01/2003 Page 10 of 10
----~----.-----.--. --.--.~--------
~\ (~<i 'O/'"R~ ~
". a~·~~ DEPUTY CLERK

 
 Case 2:03-cv-70234-LPZ Document 19 Filed 07/01/2003 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DlSTIUCT COURT EASTERN DlSTIUCT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOI-IN T. THOMPSON, BETTINA SCHRECK, GERALD L. HESSELL, DONALD WARD, KENNETH ALEXANDER, HENRY TORREZ, and SILAS T. McADOO, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

'b-P-:-'L1\TKOFF

WILLIAM OVERTON, Director, Michigan Department of Corrections, in his official capacity; GEORGE PRAMS TALLER, M.D., Director ofBureau ofHcalth Services, Michigan Department of Corrections, in his official capacity; CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., And DR. CRAIG HUTCHINSON, M.D., Director of Corrcctional Medical Services Inc., in his official capacity,

-
""-

Defendants.
----------------------------~/
.lVDGMENT

IT IS ORDERED'lAND ADJUDGED that pursuant to this Court's Opinion and Order
~JU\.. () 1 'l.UUJ
dated_ _ _ _ _ _, this cause of action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

/51- ~, Datcd at Detroit, Michigan, this

day of

2003.

DAVID J. WEAVER

CLER OF THE COURT

BY:

fML~

 
 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:mied - Docket Report

Page 1 of 7

CLOSED, RSW
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:03-cv-70234-LPZ

Thompson, et al v. Overton, et al Assigned to: Judge Lawrence P Zatkoff Demand: $0
Plaintiff John Thompson

Date Filed: 01/21/2003 Date Terminated: 07/01/2003 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Daniel E. Manville Wayne State University Civil Rights Litigation Clinic P.O. Box 20321 Ferndale, MI 48220 248-577-3348 Email: dmanville@wayne.edu LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David A. Santacroce University of Michigan 801 Monroe Street 363 Legal Research Building Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 3l3-763-4319 Email: dasanta@umich.edu LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kary L. Moss American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan 60 W. Hancock Detroit, MI 48201 313-578-6800 Fax: 313-578-6811 Email: kmoss@aclumich.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J. Steinberg American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan 60 W. Hancock

https://ecf.mied.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?854212818644694-L_353_0-1

7/9/2007

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:mied - Docket Report

Page 2 of 7

Plaintiff Bettina Schreck
Plaintiff Donald Ward
Plaintiff Kenneth Alexander

Detroit, MI 48201 313-578-6800 Email: msteinberg@aclumich.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel E. Manville (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David A. Santacroce (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kary L. Moss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J. Steinberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel E. Manville (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David A. Santacroce (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kary L. Moss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J. Steinberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel E. Manville

https://ecf.mied.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?854212818644694-L_353_0-1

7/9/2007

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:mied - Docket Report

Page 3 of 7

Plaintiff Henry Torrez
Plaintiff Silas McAdoo

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David A. Santacroce (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kary L. Moss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J. Steinberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel E. Manville (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David A. Santacroce (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kary L. Moss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J. Steinberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel E. Manville (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David A. Santacroce (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.mied.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?854212818644694-L_353_0-1

7/9/2007

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:mied - Docket Report

Page 4 of 7

Plaintiff Gerald Hessell
V. Defendant William Overton Director, Michigan Department of Corrections

Kary L. Moss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J. Steinberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel E. Manville (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David A. Santacroce (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kary L. Moss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J. Steinberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by A. Peter Govorchin Michigan Department of Attorney General 525 West Ottawa Street Suite 4th Floor, G. Mennen Williams Building P.O. Box 30217 Lansing, MI 48909 517-335-7021 Email: govorchinp@michigan.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linda M. Olivieri MI Dept of Atty Gen

https://ecf.mied.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?854212818644694-L_353_0-1

7/9/2007

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:mied - Docket Report

Page 5 of 7

Defendant George Pramstaller M.D. Director of Bureau of Health Services, Michigan Department of Corrections
Defendant Correctional Medical Systems, Incorporated
Defendant Craig Hutchinson Doctor, Director of Correctional Medical Services, Incorporated

Corrections Division P. O. Box 30217 Lansing, MI 48909 517-335-7021 Email: olivieril@michigan.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by A. Peter Govorchin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linda M. Olivieri (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brian J. Richtarcik Chapman Assoc. 40950 N. Woodward Avenue Suite 120 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 248-644-6326 Email: brichtarcik@chapmanandassociates.com
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald W. Chapman Chapman Assoc. 40950 N. Woodward Avenue Suite 120 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 248-644-6326 Fax: 248-644-6324 Email: rchapman@chapmanandassociates.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brian J. Richtarcik (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.mied.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?854212818644694-L_353_0-1

7/9/2007

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:mied - Docket Report

Page 6 of 7

Date Filed 01/21/2003 02/18/2003
02/19/2003 02/19/2003 02/19/2003 02/21/2003
02/24/2003 02/27/2003
02/28/2003 03/13/2003
03/18/2003 03/20/2003 04/11/2003 04/11/2003

Ronald W. Chapman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT - Receipt # 4174-AA - Date Fee Received: 1/21/03 with attachments 1-2 (LB) (Entered: 01/21/2003)

2 ORDER by Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff dismissing plaintiffs state law claim without prejudice with proof of service [EOD Date 2/25/03] (LS) (Entered: 02/25/2003)

3 SUMMONS returned executed by process server on 2/6/03 - answer due 2/26/03 for Corr Med Sys Inc (lg) (Entered: 02/27/2003)

4 SUMMONS returned executed by process server on 2/5/03 - answer due 2/25/03 for George Pramstaller (lg) (Entered: 02/27/2003)

5 SUMMONS returned executed by process server on 2/5/03 - answer due 2/25/03 for William Overton (lg) (Entered: 02/27/2003)

6 ORDER by Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff with stipulation, setting deadline for answer to complaint [1-1] for [EOD Date: 2/28/03] (lg) (Entered: 02/28/2003)

7 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE for Craig Hutchinson and Corr Med Sys Inc of attorney Ronald W. Chapman with proof of mailing (lg) (Entered: 02/28/2003)

8 APPEARANCE for George Pramstaller, William Overton of attorney Linda M. Olivieri, Anthony P. Govorchin with proof of mailing (lg) (Entered: 03/05/2003)

9 MOTION by plaintiff for reconsideration with brief and proof of mailing (lg) (Entered: 03/05/2003)

10 ORDER by Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff granting motion for reconsideration by plaintiffs [9-1] [EOD Date 3/14/03] (lg) (Entered: 03/14/2003)

11 MOTION by defendants Craig Hutchinson and Corr Med Sys Inc to dismiss with brief, exhibits A-I, notice of hearing and proof of service (nh) (Entered: 03/24/2003)

12 ANSWER by defendants George Pramstaller and William Overton to complaint [1-1] with proof of service (nh) (Entered: 03/24/2003)

13 RESPONSE by plaintiffs in opposition to motion to dismiss by Corr Med Sys Inc, Craig Hutchinson [11-1] with proof of service (cm) (Entered: 04/16/2003)

14 EXHIBITS A-N filed by plaintiffs in support of motion response [13-1]

https://ecf.mied.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?854212818644694-L_353_0-1

7/9/2007

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:mied - Docket Report

Page 7 of 7

04/24/2003 04/28/2003 05/27/2003
06/23/2003 07/01/2003
07/01/2003

(cm) (Entered: 04/16/2003)
15 REPLY by defendants to plaintiff' response to motion to dismiss by Corr Med Sys Inc, Craig Hutchinson [11-1]; with exhibits A-H and proof of service (jg) (Entered: 04/28/2003)
16 NOTICE by Judge Zatkoff's chambers of setting scheduling conference for 2:00 on 5/20/03 ; proof of service (jg) (Entered: 04/29/2003)
17 PRETRIAL scheduling order by Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff - setting deadline for witness list for 12/15/03 , setting deadline for discovery for 12/15/03 , setting deadline for filing dispositive motions for 1/5/04 , setting final pretrial conference for 2:00 5/17/04 , setting civil non-jury trial for 6/1/04 (kg) (Entered: 05/29/2003)
SCHEDULING conference held - Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff (bt) (Entered: 06/26/2003)
18 MEMORANDUM opinion and order by Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff granting motion to dismiss by Corr Med Sys Inc, Craig Hutchinson [111], dismissing complaint [1-1] with proof of service [EOD Date: 7/8/03] (kg) (Entered: 07/08/2003)
19 JUDGMENT entered by Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff for defendants [EOD Date: 7/8/03] (kg) (Entered: 07/08/2003)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

07/09/2007 12:20:40

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code: ddalton

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 2:03-cv-70234-LPZ

Billable Pages: 4

Cost:

0.32

https://ecf.mied.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?854212818644694-L_353_0-1

7/9/2007