2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 87 Filed 01/19/12 Pg 1 of 17 Pg ID 1322

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

_____________________________

LARRY LEE,

Plaintiff,
vs.
WASHTENAW COUNTY; DANIEL MINZEY, in his official and individual capacities; CHAD GRONDA, in his official and individual capacities; RYAN MCLAUGHLIN, in his official and individual capacities; JOSEPH FENDT, in his official and individual capacities; KIRK FILSINGER, in his official and individual capacities; ANTONIO VAUGHN, in his official and individual capacities; JILL WILLIAMS, in her official and individual capacities; RICHARD WILLIAMS, SR, in his official and individual capacities; KURT SCHIAPPACASSE, in his official and individual capacities; EDWARD MOOREMAN, in his official and individual capacities; DARYL PARKER, in his official and individual capacities; SECURECARE, INC; JANE DOE, in her official and individual capacities; and JOHN DOE, in his official and individual capacities.

Case No. 09-12471 Hon. Arthur J. Tarnow Mag. Michael Hluchaniuk
Jury Demanded

Defendants. ______________________________/

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Larry Lee, by his attorneys, the Michigan Clinical Law Program, for his second amended complaint states as follows:

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 87 Filed 01/19/12 Pg 2 of 17 Pg ID 1323
INTRODUCTION 1. This is a prisoner’s civil rights action for injunctive relief and damages arising out of the degrading and abusive anti-homosexual atmosphere created and perpetuated by defendants while plaintiff Larry Lee was incarcerated at the Washtenaw County Jail. 2. The heart of Mr. Lee’s complaint is that the defendants violated his rights under the Constitution of the United States, as actionable through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants, motivated by animus towards homosexuals, subjected Mr. Lee to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution by turning a blind-eye to sexual assaults against him by a correctional officer and other inmates, his serious medical needs, and other inhumane conditions he suffered while in the jail. Inmates contaminated Mr. Lee’s food with human feces and doused him with cups of urine. Correctional officers encouraged and were complicit in this behavior and blamed Mr. Lee’s homosexuality for provoking such horror. Mr. Lee relentlessly pleaded for help and protection. It never came and, in some instances, Mr. Lee was unlawfully punished for asking. 3. Mr. Lee’s complaint also includes a state law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
PARTIES 4. Plaintiff LARRY LEE resides in Detroit, Michigan. Mr. Lee entered the Washtenaw County Jail on June 9, 2006, was convicted on December 12, 2006, and was sentenced on March 13, 2007. Shortly after sentencing, Mr. Lee was transferred to Florence Crane. All the claims in this complaint arise out of the time period when Mr. Lee was incarcerated in the Washtenaw County Jail. 5. Defendant WASHTENAW COUNTY (“County”) is a local government unit located within the Eastern District of Michigan. Defendant controls, maintains and is directly responsible for all customs, practices, policies and procedures relevant to the operation of the Washtenaw County Jail, including, but not limited to those concerning the training of
2

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 87 Filed 01/19/12 Pg 3 of 17 Pg ID 1324
correctional officers, housing of inmates and receiving, processing and administering inmate grievances. 6. Defendant DANIEL MINZEY was the Sheriff of Washtenaw County during all relevant times. As Sheriff, defendant Minzey was directly responsible for all customs, practices, policies and procedures relevant to the operation of the Washtenaw County Jail, including, but not limited to those concerning the training of correctional officers, housing of inmates and receiving, processing and administering inmate grievances. Defendant Minzey is being sued in his official and individual capacities. 7. Defendant KIRK FILSINGER was the Commander of Washtenaw County Jail and employed by defendant Washtenaw County. Defendant FILSINGER was at all times directly responsible for overseeing the operations at Washtenaw County Jail, including, but not limited to, the formulation and implementation of customs, policies and practices, the budget, the hiring, termination, and supervision of all jail employees, and implementing and supervising investigations into inmate complaints of wrongful conduct. 8. Defendants CHAD GRONDA, RYAN MCLAUGHLIN, JOSEPH FENDT, ANTONIO VAUGHN, JILL WILLIAMS, RICHARD WILLIAMS, SR., KURT SCHIAPPACASSE, JOHN DOE and JANE DOE were, during all relevant times, correctional officers employed by the defendant County to work at Washtenaw County Jail. These defendants are being sued in their official and individual capacities. 9. Defendant EDWARD MOOREMAN was, during all relevant times, classification director at the Washtenaw County Jail and employed by defendant County. Defendant Mooreman’s job included, but was not limited to, determining housing assignments of inmates. Defendant Mooreman is being sued in his official and individual capacities. 10. Defendant SECURECARE, INC. is a for-profit Michigan corporation. At all relevant times, SecureCare was obligated by contract to provide healthcare to inmates at the Washtenaw County Jail, including Mr. Lee. Upon information and belief, SecureCare helped formulate and implement the customs, policies, practices, procedures and protocols related to medical care in
3

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 87 Filed 01/19/12 Pg 4 of 17 Pg ID 1325
the Washtenaw County Jail. 11. Defendant DARYL PARKER was, during all relevant times, a physician responsible for providing healthcare to inmates at the Washtenaw County Jail, including Mr. Lee. Upon information and belief, defendant Parker was either employed by or contracted with defendant SecureCare to provide such healthcare and design and implement SecureCare’s customs, policies and practices, procedures and protocols related to medical care in the Washtenaw County Jail. Defendant Parker is being sued in his official and individual capacities.
JURISDICTION 12. All defendants’ actions were carried out under color of state law. 13. This action is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and the laws of the State of Michigan. 14. Jurisdiction of this Court is based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. Supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 15. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Michigan because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Mr. Lee’s claims occurred within this district, and, upon information and belief, all defendants reside within the district and the state of Michigan.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 16. Mr. Lee entered Washtenaw County Jail on Friday June 9, 2006. 17. Sexual and physical abuse by inmates started almost immediately upon Mr. Lee’s arrival. Just days after entering, Mr. Lee was sexually assaulted by an inmate who groped Mr. Lee, exposed himself, and told Mr. Lee that he expected Mr. Lee to perform oral sex on him in the future. Mr. Lee reported this to an unknown corrections officer. The deputy replied that it was common for effeminate prisoners to be assaulted and that there was nothing the officer could do. Later that day the same inmate punched Mr. Lee in the face and physically forced him to perform oral sex. 18. Approximately one week after the first assault, defendant deputy Chad Gronda began
4

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 87 Filed 01/19/12 Pg 5 of 17 Pg ID 1326
harassing Mr. Lee for being a homosexual. Defendant Gronda called Mr. Lee “faggot,” “asslicker,” “sissy” and “queen” in front of inmates and imitated homosexual stereotypes by speaking with a lisp and by making effeminate hand gestures. When Mr. Lee asked defendant Gronda to stop, Gronda replied that he teased Mr. Lee because he liked Lee and that Lee wanted to perform oral sex on Gronda. 19. Defendant Gronda harassed Mr. Lee throughout his incarceration. Mr. Lee was in constant fear of this harassment for many reasons, most significantly because it influenced the other inmates to harass him. 20. Mr. Lee was soon attacked by an inmate known as Detroit, who grabbed Mr. Lee by the throat and pinned him against a wall for not responding when Detroit said “yo faggot.” Mr. Lee complained to deputy Profit about the attack. Deputy Profit replied that such attacks were part of the experience of being a homosexual in jail. 21. On June 30, 2006, Mr. Lee was taken from jail to court. While returning to the jail, Mr. Lee reported to deputy Rick Casey that defendant Gronda was sexually harassing him in front of inmates and provoking inmates to do the same. Deputy Casey escorted Mr. Lee to defendant sergeant Richard Williams, Sr.’s, office and had Mr. Lee report defendant Gronda’s harassment. Defendant Williams, Sr., told Mr. Lee that he did not believe him and instructed deputy Casey to escort Mr. Lee back to his cell. 22. On or about July 2, 2006, Mr. Lee complained to deputy Rebecca Beard about defendant Gronda’s harassment as well as threats, harassment, and physical assaults from other inmates. Deputy Beard told Mr. Lee that he was “here because [he was] a criminal. Welcome to the Hogback Hilton.” 23. On or about July 2, 2006, Mr. Lee complained of chest pains to defendant Gronda and explained that he had also experienced such pains and shortness of breath just the day before. Defendant Gronda responded “Lee, you’re so gay, you whine about everything,” and instructed Mr. Lee to send a grievance to the medical staff. That evening, Mr. Lee informed Nurse Woodruff that defendant Gronda refused to call the medical staff when Mr. Lee was
5

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 87 Filed 01/19/12 Pg 6 of 17 Pg ID 1327
experiencing chest pain. In the presence of Mr. Lee, Nurse Woodruff told defendant Gronda to call the medical staff immediately if Mr. Lee complained of chest pain. 24. Approximately five minutes later and outside of the presence of Nurse Woodruff, defendant Gronda returned to Mr. Lee’s cell and threatened, “Look you little faggot, if you ever put me on the spot again, I will not hesitate to write you up for every little mistake you make.” 25. On or about July 4, 2006, Mr. Lee reported defendant Gronda’s harassment to defendant Sergeant Schiapacasse. Defendant Schiapacasse told Mr. Lee that he would talk to Mr. Lee later. He never did. 26. On or about July 10, 2006, a deputy escorted Mr. Lee from the barber to his cell and told him to walk along the right side of the hall. Upon reaching an intersecting hallway, a deputy told Mr. Lee to turn right and walk against the wall. Mr. Lee did so and immediately hit his head on a utility box mounted to the wall, fell backward and further injured his head on the wall and the floor. Upon information and belief, the deputy and other correctional staff knew of this hazard, and intentionally put Mr. Lee in harm’s way. 27. Defendant Gronda and two nurses arrived at the scene. Gronda belittled Lee’s sexuality, refused to provide medical treatment, and instructed the staff to take Mr. Lee to a holding cell. In that cell Mr. Lee vomited and bled from his ear and nose. As a result of the head trauma, he suffered blurred vision and chronic headaches. 28. Defendant Doctor Parker did not examine Mr. Lee until three days after his head injury. Despite Mr. Lee’s persisting headaches and blurred vision, defendant Parker failed to properly diagnose and treat Mr. Lee at that time or at any time in the future. 29. Throughout the month of August 2006, Mr. Lee was sexually harassed by defendant deputies Gronda and Vaughn who would call Mr. Lee anti-homosexual names in front of other inmates. The inmates would follow suit, harassing Mr. Lee and bullying him to give them his food. 30. Several times in August of 2006, and continuing throughout Mr. Lee’s incarceration, inmates threw urine on Mr. Lee. When Mr. Lee took showers to clean off the urine, inmates
6

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 87 Filed 01/19/12 Pg 7 of 17 Pg ID 1328
threw objects at him and stole his clothes and towel, leaving him vulnerable to sexual assaults. Mr. Lee complained about the urine attacks to the jail staff, who responded by blaming Mr. Lee’s homosexuality for the attacks. 31. On September 26, 2006, defendant Gronda entered Mr. Lee’s room and forced Mr. Lee to perform oral sex. Defendant Gronda did this under threat of segregation and continued public harassment that, among other things, would cause further harassment and attacks by other inmates. 32. On about October 4, 2006, an inmate from housing unit “D” came into Mr. Lee’s cell and threatened to physically assault Mr. Lee if he didn’t perform oral sex on him in the future. Mr. Lee reported this threat to defendant deputy Jill Williams and requested to be moved from unit “D.” Defendant Jill Williams accused Mr. Lee of lying and denied his request. 33. On or about October 18, 2006, Mr. Lee sent a grievance to defendant Sheriff Minzey and all sergeants, lieutenants, and supervisory staff. The grievance addressed the prison staff’s failure to protect Mr. Lee from inmate attacks and defendant Gronda’s sexual assault and continued harassment. 34. On or about October 19, 2006, Mr. Lee was physically forced to perform oral sex on the inmate whom he had previously complained about to defendant Jill Williams. The following day Mr. Lee reported the sexual assault to defendant Jill Williams. She again accused him of lying but agreed to move him to unit “B.” 35. On or about October 21, 2006, defendant Gronda escorted Mr. Lee from unit “B” to unit “C.” Prior to their arrival in unit “C,” defendant Gronda searched Mr. Lee’s property and discovered newspaper clippings and recipes. Defendant Gronda threatened to write up Mr. Lee for having a newspaper in his cell if Mr. Lee did not perform oral sex on defendant Gronda. Fearing more harassment and the negative consequences from write-ups, Mr. Lee complied. When leaving, defendant Gronda told Mr. Lee that he would put Lee in segregation if Mr. Lee told anybody.
7

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 87 Filed 01/19/12 Pg 8 of 17 Pg ID 1329
36. Throughout Mr. Lee’s incarceration at the jail, defendant Gronda: i) actively encouraged inmates to engage in sexual harassment and hostile anti-homosexual behavior toward Mr. Lee; ii) repeatedly called Mr. Lee derogatory anti-homosexual names in front of other inmates; iii) portrayed demeaning stereotypes of homosexuals by, among other things, imitating effeminate mannerisms; and iv) discouraged Mr. Lee from attending Catholic services on account of Mr. Lee’s sexuality. 37. Between August 2006 and February 2007, defendant Vaughn repeatedly told Mr. Lee that he was going to hell for being a homosexual. Defendant Vaughn would quote scripture passages regarding homosexuality. He told Mr. Lee that he would die of HIV by age thirty. 38. In October 2006, Mr. Lee was confronted by an inmate known as Samuel Sams who threatened to beat Mr. Lee for being a homosexual. Mr. Lee reported this threat to deputy Dean Reich and deputy Kellie Powdhar. Deputy Reich told Mr. Lee that he did not believe him and left. When the inmate recreation time began, inmate Samuel Sams physically assaulted Mr. Lee. 39. On or about November 20, 2006, Mr. Lee sent a grievance to defendant Minzey and the duty sergeant complaining of sexual harassment by guards and that the guards did not stop inmates from physically assaulting Mr. Lee. 40. Throughout Mr. Lee’s incarceration, inmates would frequently push trash and pour urine underneath Mr. Lee’s cell door. On or about December 10, 2006, Mr. Lee complained to defendant Jill Williams who told Mr. Lee to stop complaining and threatened to put him “in the hole.” 41. Between about January 12 and January 19, 2007, Mr. Lee received a dinner tray from an inmate who worked as a steward with the jail dining services. On the tray were a piece of chicken and a sandwich wrapped in a napkin. Mr. Lee took a bite of the chicken and noticed an odd taste. He then unwrapped the sandwich, took a bite, discovered a foul taste and smell, and opened the sandwich to discover human feces. Mr. Lee also discovered feces under the skin of the chicken. Inmates looking on laughed and screamed. The steward and another inmate known as Lawrence Buckner admitted that they had planned this. Mr. Lee reported the incident to all of
8

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 87 Filed 01/19/12 Pg 9 of 17 Pg ID 1330
the officers on duty that evening, including defendant deputy McLaughlin who laughed and told Mr. Lee that he “better eat the rest of [his] turd sandwich.” 42. On January 19, 2007, Mr. Lee met with defendant Richard Williams, Sr., to complain about the sexual assaults by defendant Gronda, the frequent assaults by inmates, the feces incident, and other abuse. Defendant Williams , Sr., said that he would investigate but added, “I can tell you right now that there is nothing we can do to prevent an inmate from harassing or assaulting another inmate.” 43. On or about January 20, 2007, defendant Gronda approached Mr. Lee and said, “You little faggot, you’re going to pay for opening your mouth. You’re a criminal and a faggot, do you actually think my co-workers will believe the word of a faggot? I could torture you all day long and they wouldn’t give a shit. Keep that mouth of yours shut and we won’t have any problems.” 44. On or about January 22, 2007, Mr. Lee again found human feces in his food. As Mr. Lee vomited, other inmates yelled and laughed. Mr. Lee reported this to all of the officers on duty, including the defendants that were present. Deputy C’na Justice told Mr. Lee that she would report this to the duty sergeant and to defendant Minzey. 45. On or about January 24, 2007, Mr. Lee found more feces in his food and reported it to defendant Fendt and other officers. Defendant Fendt was responsible for supervising the inmates who worked as food stewards. He said he would investigate. 46. On or about January 26, 2007, Mr. Lee’s breakfast was contaminated with human feces. Mr. Lee told the officers on duty and the social worker Callista Scotto. 47. That same day, Mr. Lee wrote a grievance to defendant Minzey and all supervisory staff, lieutenants, and social workers, complaining about the feces in his food and defendant Gronda’s sexual assaults and sexual harassment. 48. On or about January 27, 2007, Mr. Lee’s dinner was again contaminated with human feces. Mr. Lee again vomited upon discovering the feces. He complained to the block officers and defendant McLaughlin who replied, “Lee are you still eating shit sandwiches?”
9

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 87 Filed 01/19/12 Pg 10 of 17 Pg ID 1331
49. In mid to late January 2007, Mr. Lee asked defendant housing coordinator Edward Mooreman for a transfer to a different housing unit because of the all of the abuse that he was suffering. Defendant Mooreman refused to move Mr. Lee, despite making such accommodations for heterosexual prisoners. 50. On or about January 30, 2007, Mr. Lee complained to defendant Vaughn that an inmate named Roger was physically threatening Mr. Lee and calling him derogatory names. Defendant Vaughn said that he was tired of Mr. Lee’s complaints, and that to teach him not to complain, he was ordering that Mr. Lee be placed in isolation. 51. On or about January 31, 2007, Mr. Lee complained to defendant Jill Williams and deputy Mark Smolenski about the feces incidents and that he was now being punished for complaining about his treatment. 52. On or about February 1, 2007, Mr. Lee complained to deputy Richard Williams, Jr. about repeatedly finding feces in his food. 53. On or about February 9, 2007, Mr. Lee again asked defendant Mooreman for a transfer to a different housing unit rather than being kept in isolation. Defendant Mooreman stated that the jail was over-crowded and that nothing could be done about inmate-on-inmate abuse. 54. On or about February 9, 2007, deputy Richard Williams, Jr., told Mr. Lee that as a homosexual, Mr. Lee would go to hell. Deputy Williams, Jr., told Mr. Lee that he could change his homosexuality through Jesus Christ. Deputy Williams, Jr., discouraged Mr. Lee from reading the Quar’an and from accepting his homosexuality. 55. Throughout Mr. Lee’s approximately three weeks in isolation, inmates continued to pour urine under his cell door. Defendants Fendt, Vaughn, and other correctional officers denied Mr. Lee a mop or other cleaning supplies. Mr. Lee was forced to endure the rancid odor and unsanitary conditions without respite as he was almost continuously locked in his cell.
10

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 87 Filed 01/19/12 Pg 11 of 17 Pg ID 1332
56. Throughout Mr. Lee’s incarceration he complained to defendant Doctor Parker, nurse Claudette, and nurse Don Bellman about headaches and panic attacks brought on by the physical and sexual assaults and sexual harassment he endured in jail. On several occasions he asked defendant Doctor Parker to place him in the medical unit. These requests were denied. 57. Mr. Lee also complained of sleep deprivation, hallucinations, and depression on several occasions throughout his incarceration. He made requests to defendant Doctor Parker to see a psychiatrist and a neurologist. Despite ongoing panic attacks and depression, these requests were denied until February 2007. Prior to Mr. Lee’s incarceration, he had no history of mental illness. 58. In or about March 2007, Mr. Lee was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder stemming from the attacks and abuse that he suffered at the Washtenaw County Jail. 59. During Mr. Lee’s incarceration, the jail staff told Mr. Lee that there was no formal system of administrative remedies. Mr. Lee repeatedly communicated his grievances to jail staff (including defendants) both orally and in writing exhausting every means of addressing his complaints made available to him. 60. On August 23, 2007, five months after Mr. Lee left Washtenaw County Jail, defendant Kirk Filsinger acknowledged receiving a letter from Mr. Lee complaining about his treatment at the jail, and promised that his accusations would be investigated. He indicated the investigation would be complete by September 20, 2007. 61. Defendant Filsinger assigned the investigation into Mr. Lee’s accusations to Lieutenant Gary Greenfield and Sergeant Randy Casey, the brother of Deputy Rick Casey. Randy Casey completed his investigation on January 3, 2008. Upon information and belief, Mr. Lee was never actually interviewed regarding his accusations and defendant Filsinger failed to properly oversee, supervise, and control the investigation into Mr. Lee’s allegations and take appropriate action with respect to Mr. Lee’s complaints.
11

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 87 Filed 01/19/12 Pg 12 of 17 Pg ID 1333
LEGAL CLAIMS 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Cruel and Unusual Punishment: Sexual Assault by a Correctional Officer 62. By virtue of the foregoing, defendant Chad Gronda, acting under color of state law maliciously and sadistically sexually assaulted Mr. Lee on several occasions. 63. Defendant Chad Gronda caused Mr. Lee to suffer cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution as actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 64. By virtue of the foregoing, defendants Daniel Minzey, Kirk Filsinger, Kurt Schiappacassee and Washtenaw County failed to train and supervise their employees, and effectuated a custom, policy and practice of inaction with respect to the use of force and sexual contact with inmates. 65. These defendants’ inadequate training and supervision, and custom, policy and practice of inaction were deliberately indifferent and directly and proximately deprived Mr. Lee of his fundamental rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution as actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Violation of Substantive Due Process: Right to Bodily Integrity 66. By virtue of the foregoing, defendant Chad Gronda, acting under color of state law, violated Mr. Lee’s fundamental right to personal security and bodily integrity under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution as actionable under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Violation of First Amendment: Retaliation for Engaging in Protected Conduct 67. By virtue of the foregoing, defendants Chad Gronda and Antonio Vaughn, acting under color of state law, violated Mr. Lee’s right to freedom of speech. 68. These defendants retaliated against Mr. Lee for reporting defendant Gronda’s misconduct. In doing so, they violated the First Amendment of the United States Constitution as actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
12

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 87 Filed 01/19/12 Pg 13 of 17 Pg ID 1334
Cruel and Unusual Punishment: Deliberate Indifference to Sexual and Physical Assaults and the Degrading and Abusive Atmosphere Towards Homosexuals 69. By virtue of the foregoing, defendants Daniel Minzey, Chad Gronda, Kurt Schiappacasse, Edward Mooreman, Joseph Fendt, Ryan McLaughlin, Antonio Vaughn, Jill Williams, Richard Williams, Sr., and Kirk Filsinger acting under color of state law, were deliberately indifferent to i.) sexual assaults by defendant Gronda; ii.) sexual and physical assaults and other inhumane acts by inmates; and iii.) the degrading and abusive anti-homosexual atmosphere. 70. These defendants were subjectively aware of the threat that defendant Gronda and other inmates posed to Mr. Lee, and their inaction directly and proximately caused Mr. Lee to suffer cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution as actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 71. By virtue of the foregoing, defendants Washtenaw County, Daniel Minzey, Edward Mooreman, Richard Williams, Sr., and Kirk Filsinger failed to train and supervise and effectuated a custom, policy and practice of inaction with respect to investigating cases of prisoner abuse and protecting inmates from sexual assault, violence, and inhumane conditions, particularly with respect to homosexual inmates, who are especially likely to be targets of sexual assault, violence, and inhumane treatment in correctional facilities. 72. These defendants’ inadequate training and supervision and custom, policy and practice of inaction were deliberately indifferent and directly and proximately deprived Mr. Lee of his fundamental rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution as actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Cruel and Unusual Punishment: Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs 73. By virtue of the foregoing, defendants Daniel Minzey, Daryl Parker, SecureCare, Chad Gronda, and Kirk Filsinger acting under color of state law, were deliberately indifferent to Mr. Lee’s serious medical needs, including but not limited to severe anxiety, and depression.
13

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 87 Filed 01/19/12 Pg 14 of 17 Pg ID 1335
74. These defendants were subjectively aware of these serious medical needs, and their inaction directly and proximately caused Mr. Lee to suffer cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution as actionable under 42 U.S.C. §1983. 75. By virtue of the foregoing, defendants Washtenaw County, Daniel Minzey, Kirk Filsinger, Daryl Parker, and SecureCare failed to train and supervise and effectuated a custom, policy and practice of inaction with respect to responding to, diagnosing, and treating serious medical needs. 76. These defendants’ inadequate training and supervision and custom, policy and practice of inaction were deliberately indifferent and directly and proximately deprived Mr. Lee of his fundamental rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution as actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Violation of Substantive Due Process: Disclosure of Sexual Orientation 77. By virtue of the foregoing, defendants Chad Gronda and Antonio Vaughn, acting under color of state law, deprived Mr. Lee of his privacy rights to maintain the confidentiality of his sexual orientation. 78. These defendants recklessly disclosed Mr. Lee’s homosexuality knowing that it would increase the probability of assaults on Mr. Lee by other inmates and correctional officers, violating Mr. Lee’s right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution as actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 79. By virtue of the foregoing, defendants Kirk Filsinger, Daniel Minzey, and Washtenaw County failed to train and supervise and effectuated a custom, policy and practice of inaction with respect to maintaining confidentiality of inmates’ sexual orientation. 80. These defendants’ inadequate training and supervision and custom, policy and practice of inaction, which amounted to deliberate indifference, directly and proximately deprived Mr. Lee of his fundamental rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution as actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
14

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 87 Filed 01/19/12 Pg 15 of 17 Pg ID 1336
Violation of Right to Equal Protection of the Law 81. By virtue of the foregoing, defendants, acting under color of state law, deprived Mr. Lee of equal protection under the law. 82. Defendants failure to protect Mr. Lee from sexual assaults and physical assaults, failure to adequately consider and investigate his grievances, and their endorsement and ratification of the degrading and abusive anti-homosexual atmosphere and treatment of Mr. Lee constitutes discrimination based upon sex and sexual orientation in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States as actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
State Law Claim Tort Claims: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 83. By virtue of the foregoing, defendants Chad Gronda, Antonio Vaughn, and Ryan McLaughlin, under the laws of the State of Michigan, committed the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress when they deliberately acted in an extreme and outrageous manner causing Mr. Lee to suffer severe emotional distress.
Doe Claims 84. Defendants Jane Doe and John Doe are unknown defendants who engaged in some or all of the conduct alleged in this second amended complaint. 85. Each numbered allegation in this second amended complaint is to be read as alleging, and does allege, the conduct described against Jane Doe and John Doe. 86. In each numbered allegation alleging conduct at a specific named defendant, those named defendants not specified in such allegation are named in such allegations as Jane Doe and John Doe.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF By virtue of the foregoing, Mr. Lee requests that the Court: A. Issue an injunction ordering defendants to:
15

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 87 Filed 01/19/12 Pg 16 of 17 Pg ID 1337

1. Design and implement a program that the Court finds adequately trains

correctional officers to protect homosexual inmates and creates an

environment that is not hostile to their presence;

2. Design and implement a program that the Court finds adequately and timely

reviews and responds to complaints by inmates as to physical threats, health

needs, and harassment, including harassment based on sexual orientation;

3. Design and implement a program that the Court finds adequately reviews

housing assignments as to inmates who may be particularly susceptible to

violence and/or harassment;

B. Declare that Mr. Lee’s constitutional and state law rights were violated by the

defendants;

C. Enter a judgment holding defendants jointly and severally liable to Mr. Lee for

the wrongs complained of and awarding Mr. Lee compensatory and punitive

damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

D. Award Mr. Lee his costs, interest from the date of filing, and reasonable

attorneys’ fees as provided for by law; and

E. Grant such other, further, and different relief as this Court deems just and proper.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff Larry Lee requests a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Dated: January 19, 2012

Respectfully submitted,

MICHIGAN CLINICAL LAW PROGRAM
/s David A Santacroce Attorney for Plaintiff Michigan Clinical Law Program University of Michigan Law School 363 Legal Research Building; 801 Monroe Street Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 734.763.4319 mclp@umich.edu David A. Santacroce P61367

16

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 87 Filed 01/19/12 Pg 17 of 17 Pg ID 1338
PROOF OF SERVICE I certify that on January 19, 2012, I electronically filed plaintiff’s amended complaint together with this proof of service with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system, which will send e-mail notification to all attorneys of record.
MICHIGAN CLINICAL LAW PROGRAM /s David A Santacroce Attorney for Plaintiff Michigan Clinical Law Program University of Michigan Law School 363 Legal Research Building; 801 Monroe Street Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 734.763.4319 mclp@umich.edu David A. Santacroce (P61367)
17

 
 2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 45 Filed 12/09/09 Pg 1 of 20 Pg ID 177

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

LARRY LEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

C.A. No.: 2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH

Honorable Arthur J. Tarnow

WASHTENAW COUNTY, DANIEL MINZEY,

Magistrate Michael Hluchaniuk

in his official and individual capacities; CHAD

GRONDA, in his official and individual capacities;

RYAN MCLAUGHLIN, in his official and individual

capacities; JOSEPH FENDT, in his official and

individual capacities; RICK CASEY, in his official

DEFENDANT DR. PARKER &

and individual capacities; RICHARD WILLIAMS, JR., SECURECARE, INC.'S MOTION

in his official and individual capacities; ANTONIO

TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO

VAUGHN, in his official and individual capacities;

FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)

JILL WILLIAMS, in her official and individual capacities;

RICHARD WILLIAMS, SR., in his official and individual

capacities; KURT SCHIAPPACASSE, in his official and

individual capacities; EDWARD MOOREMAN,

in his official and individual capacities; DARYL PARKER,

in his official and individual capacities; SECURECARE, INC.;

JANE DOE, in her official and individual capacities; and

JOHN DOE, in his official and individual capacities.

Defendants.

DAVID A. SANTACROCE (P61367) Attorney for Plaintiff 801 Monroe Street 363 Legal Research Building Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 (734) 763-4319

D. JENNIFER ANDREOU (P38973) EMILY BALLENBERGER (P6441 0) Attorneys for Defendants Dr. Parker
& SecureCare, Inc. 10 S. Main Street, Suite 400 Mt. Clemens, MI 48043 (586) 466-7607/783-7621

CYNTHIA L. REACH (P55903) Attorney for Washtenaw County and Named County Employees 121 W. Washington St. Suite 400 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 (734) 994-1400

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 45 Filed 12/09/09 Pg 2 of 20 Pg ID 178
DEFENDANTS, DR. PARKER and SECURECARE, INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) Now comes Defendants, DR. PARKER and SECURECARE, INC. by their attorneys, PLUNKETT COONEY and hereby request this Court grant their Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), for the following reasons: 1. On November 19, 2009, Larry Lee filed a First Amended Complaint alleging vague and various violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution against these Defendants.1 (Exhibit A Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint) 2. The only allegations in Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint as to Dr. Parker and SecureCare, Inc. are in paragraphs 70-73 which set forth conclusory allegations of "cruel and unusual punishment" in violation ofthe Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and "deliberate indifference to serious medical needs" under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 3. Plaintiff has not alleged any facts in support of a violation of the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution as committed by Dr. Parker and/or SecureCare, Inc., nor has Plaintiff alleged any causal relationship as to what injury or damage these purported violations caused him as committed by these Defendants. 4. Accordingly, Plaintiffs allegation that Dr. Parker and SecureCare, Inc. violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution should be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
1Plaintiff, Larry Lee had on October 14, 2009 previously filed a Complaint against Dr Parker and others, but no Answer nor other responsive pleading had been filed as of yet on behalf of Dr. Parker and thus, this Motion constitutes these Defendants' flrst responsive pleading.
-2 -

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 45 Filed 12/09/09 Pg 3 of 20 Pg ID 179
5. Plaintiff has also not alleged any facts to support that Dr. Parker and/or SecureCare, Inc. were "deliberately indifferent" under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to his medical needs; what those medical needs were; or how such purported deliberate indifference was the proximate cause of any injury or damage to Plaintiff as committed by these Defendants.
6. Accordingly, Plaintiffs allegation regarding violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as to Dr. Parker and/or SecureCare, Inc. should be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
7. Any claim Plaintiff may have against these Defendants (although Defendants dispute the validity of any such claim) properly sounds in medical malpractice; yet, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the requisite provisions of the Michigan Medical Malpractice Tort Reform Act, MCL § 600.2912, et seq, with respect to the filing of a Notice of Intent or Affidavit of Meritorious Claim, as well as other provisions ofMCL § 600. 2912, et seq.
8. In Bryant v. Oakpointe Villa Nursing Centre, Inc., 471 Mich. 411; 684 N.W.2d 864 (2004), the Michigan Supreme Court held that a claim should have been filed as a medical malpractice claim if:
(1) The claim pertains to an action that occurred within the course of a professional relationship; and
(2) the claim raises questions of medical judgment beyond the realm of common knowledge and experience. Bryant at 422.
9. According to the Court in Bryant, a "professional relationship" exists when a licensed health care professional is subject to a contractual duty that requires the licensed health care professional to render professional health care services to the decedent. Bryant at 425.
10. Since Dr. Parker is a licensed health care professional under the Michigan Public Health Code, a professional relationship existed as between Plaintiff and Dr. Parker.
II. The Court in Bryant further held that "medical judgment beyond the realm of a common knowledge and experience" is necessary, if the reasonableness of the health care
- 3-

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 45 Filed 12/09/09 Pg 4 of 20 Pg ID 180
professional's actions can only be evaluated by the jury after being presented with standard of care testimony by an expert." Bryant at 423.
12. Here, Plaintiff alleges as to Dr. Parker deliberate indifference to Mr. Lee's "serious medical needs including, but not limited to severe anxiety, depression and head trauma." (Paragraph 70 of Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint)
13. Whether or not Dr. Parker rendered appropriate medical treatment in response to Plaintiffs purported complaints is not within the knowledge of an ordinary layperson and requires expert testimony from other qualified healthcare providers. As such, these allegations sound in medical malpractice.
14. In order to pursue a claim for medical malpractice, a plaintiff is required to comply with the statutory provisions set forth in MCL § 600. 2912, et seq.
15. Dismissal of Plaintiffs cause of action is mandated when a Plaintiff fails to comply with these statutory provisions. Roberts v. Mecosta General Hosp., 470 Mich. 679; 684 N.W.2d 711 (2004); Nippa v. Botsford General Hosp., 257 Mich. App. 387 N.W.2d 268 (2003).
16. Plaintiff has failed to comply with MCL § 600.2912d and MCL § 600.2912b; accordingly, dismissal is required pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
17. If the Court is not inclined to dismiss this action as to Dr. Parker and SecureCare, Inc., Defendants respectfully request pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e), that Plaintiff be required to amend his Complaint to set forth a more definite statement of his claims against these Defendants and, further, comply with the provisions of the Michigan Medical Malpractice Tort Reform Act, including but limited to the filing of an appropriate Notice of Intent and a proper Affidavit of Merit as to Dr. Parker.
-4-

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 45 Filed 12/09/09 Pg 5 of 20 Pg ID 181

WHEREFORE, Defendants, DR. PARKER and SECURECARE, INC. respectfully request this Honorable Court dismiss them as Defendants from this action, or in the alternative, require Plaintiff to set forth a more definite statement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e), together with the recovery of all costs and attorney fees.
Respectfully submitted,
PLUNKETT f COONEY

Dated: December 9, 2009

By:/s/ D. Jennifer Andreou D. JENNIFER ANDREOU (P38973) EMILY BALLENBERGER (P6441 0) Attorneys for Defendants Dr. Parker & SecureCare, Inc. 10 South Main Street, Suite 400 Mt. Clemens, MI 48043 (586) 466-76071783-7621

-5 -

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 45 Filed 12/09/09 Pg 6 of 20 Pg ID 182

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

LARRY LEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

C.A. No.: 2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH

Honorable Arthur J. Tarnow

WASHTENAW COUNTY, DANIEL MINZEY,

Magistrate Michael Hluchaniuk

in his official and individual capacities; CHAD

GRONDA, in his official and individual capacities;

RYAN MCLAUGHLIN, in his official and individual

capacities; JOSEPH FENDT, in his official and

individual capacities; RICK CASEY, in his official

and individual capacities; RICHARD WILLIAMS, JR., DEFENDANT DR. PARKER &

in his official and individual capacities; ANTONIO

SECURECARE, INC.'S BRIEF

VAUGHN, in his official and individual capacities;

IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO

JILL WILLIAMS, in her official and individual capacities; DISMISS PURSUANT TO

RICHARD WILLIAMS, SR., in his official and individual FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)

capacities; KURT SCHIAPPACASSE, in his official and

individual capacities; EDWARD MOOREMAN,

in his official and individual capacities; DARYL PARKER,

in his official and individual capacities; SECURECARE, INC.;

JANE DOE, in her official and individual capacities; and

JOHN DOE, in his official and individual capacities.

Defendants.

DAVID A. SANTACROCE (P61367) Attorney for Plaintiff 801 Monroe Street 363 Legal Research Building Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 (734) 763-4319

D. JENNIFER ANDREOU (P38973) EMILY BALLENBERGER (P64410) Attorneys for Defendants Dr. Parker
& SecureCare, Inc. 10 S. Main Street, Suite 400 Mt. Clemens, MI 48043 (586) 466-76071783-7621

CYNTHIA L. REACH (P55903) Attorney for Washtenaw County and
Named County Employees 121 W. Washington St. Suite 400 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 (734) 994-1400

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 45 Filed 12/09/09 Pg 7 of 20 Pg ID 183
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE:
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................................................... ii STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED ............................................................................... .iv INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS ......................................................................................................... 1 STANDARD OF REVIEW ........................................................................................................ 3 LAW AND ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................... 4
I. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM THAT DR. PARKER AND/OR SECURECARE, INC. DEMONSTRATED "DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE" TO HIS SERIOUS MEDICAL NEEDS IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 SHOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO PLEAD ANY FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS IN SUPPORT OF SAME AND, PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO PLEAD ANY CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THESE PURPORTED VIOLATIONS AND WHAT INJURIES AND DAMAGES WERE SUSTAINED BY THE PLAINTIFF AS A RESULT OF THESE DEFENDANTS ACTIONS ........................................................................................................... 4
II. ANY CLAIM PLAINTIFF HAS AGAINST THESE DEFENDANTS (WHICH IS DENIED) SOUNDS IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND SHOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUISITE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF THE MICHIGAN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE TORT REFORM ACT, MCL § 600.2912, et seq, WITH RESPECT TO THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF INTENT AND AN AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT.............................. 5
III. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THESE DEFENDANTS REQUEST A MORE DEFINITIVE STATEMENT.............................................................................. 7
PROOF OF SERVICE
-I -

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 45 Filed 12/09/09 Pg 8 of 20 Pg ID 184
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Federal Cases: Carter v. Cornwell, 983 F.2d 52, 54 (6th Cir. 1993) ................................................................... 3 Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 98-101 (1976) ..................................................................... .4, 5 Gazette v. City ofPontiac, 41 F.3d 1061, 1064 (6th Cir. 1994) .................................................. 3 Guaranty Trust Co. ofNew Yorkv. York, 426 U.S. 99, 109 (1945) .............................................................................................................. 7 Jackson v. Richards Medical Co., 961 F.2d 575, 577 (6th Cir. 1992)......................................... 3 McLeod v. Plymouth Court Nursing Home, 957 F. Supp. 113, 115 (E.D. Mich. 1997)................................................................................... 6 Monell v. Dept. ofSocial Services in New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978) ...................................................................................................... 4 Morgan v. Church's Fried Chicken, 829 F.2d 10, 12 (6th Cir. 1987) ......................................... 3 Windsor v. The Tennessean, 719 F.2d 155, 158 (6th Cir. 1983) ................................................. 3 State Cases: Bryant v. Oakpointe Villa Nursing Centre, Inc., 471 Mich. 411; 684 N.W. 2d 864 (2004)................................................................................ 5, 6 Lee v. Putz, W.L. 1791304 (W.D. Mich. 2006) .......................................................................... 6 MacDonald v. Barbarotto, 161 Mich App. 542; 411 N.W. 2d 747 (1987) ............................................................................................................. 6 Nippa v. Botsford General Hasp., 257 Mich App. 387; 668 N.W. 2d 628 (2003) ............................................................................................................. 7 Roberts v Mecosta General Hasp., 470 Mich 679; 684 N.W. 2d 711 (2004) ............................................................................................................. 7 Tipton v. William Beaumont Hasp., 266 Mich App. 27, 33; 697 N.W. 2d 552 (2007) ............................................................................................................. 6
- 11 -

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 45 Filed 12/09/09 Pg 9 of 20 Pg ID 185 Statutes: MCL § 600.2912 ......................................................................................................................i, 5 MCL § 600.2912b ................................................................................................................... 6, 7 MCL § 600.2912d ................................................................................................................... 6, 7 MCL § 691.1406 ......................................................................................................................... 1 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ......................................................................................................... .i, 1, 2, 4, 5 Rules: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)................................................................................................... 1, 3, 5, 7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) ................................................................................................................... 8 Other: Eighth Amendment- U.S. Constitution.................................................................................. I, 2 Fourteenth Amendment- U.S. Constitution ........................................................................... !, 2
- 111-

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 45 Filed 12/09/09 Pg 10 of 20 Pg ID 186

STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED

I.

WHETHER PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM THAT DR. PARKER AND/OR

SECURECARE, INC. CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION OF THE

EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE UNITED

STATES CONSTITUTION AND SHOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE

PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO PLEAD ANY FACTUAL

ALLEGATIONS IN SUPPORT OF SAME AND THUS THERE IS NO

MATERIAL FACT IN DISPUTE AS TO THIS ALLEGATION.

Defendants Dr. Parker and SecureCare, Inc. answer "yes."

Plaintiff presumably answers "no."

II. WHETHER PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM THAT DR. PARKER AND SECURECARE, INC. WERE DELIBERATELY INDIFFERENT TO HIS MEDICAL NEEDS IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 SHOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO PLEAD ANY FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS IN SUPPORT OF SAME NOR HAS PLAINTIFF PLED ANY CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THESE PURPORTED VIOLATIONS AND WHAT INJURIES AND DAMAGES WERE SUSTAINED AS A RESULT OF THESE
ACTIONS.

Defendants Dr. Parker and SecureCare, Inc. answer "yes."

Plaintiff presumably answers "no."

III. WHETHER PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM AS TO THESE DEFENDANTS PROPERLY SOUNDS IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (IF ANYTHING) AND THUS SHOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUISITE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF THE MICHIGAN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE TORT REFORM ACT, MCL §600.2912, ET SEQ. WITH RESPECT TO THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF INTENT AND
AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT.

Defendants Dr. Parker and SecureCare, Inc. answer "yes."

Plaintiff presumably answers "no."

-IV-

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 45 Filed 12/09/09 Pg 11 of 20 Pg ID 187
INTRODUCTION On October 14, 2009, Plaintiff, Larry Lee, filed a pro se Complaint against numerous Defendants alleging vague and various violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; violations of MCL § 691.1406 and other "tort actions of negligence." On November 19, 2009, a First Amended Complaint was filed Attorney David Santacroce on behalf of Mr. Lee. Although the First Amended Complaint goes a long way in cleaning up the pleadings, the allegations against these Defendants, Dr. Parker and SecureCare, Inc., remain vague and conclusory. Accordingly, these Defendants have filed this 12(b)(6) motion and request that this Honorable Court dismiss paragraphs 70-73 of Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, thereby dismissing these Defendants from this matter.
STATEMENT OF FACTS According to the allegations set forth in Mr. Lee's First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff entered the Washtenaw County Jail on June 9, 2006, was convicted on December 12, 2006 and was sentenced on March 13, 2007. Shortly after sentencing, Mr. Lee was transferred to Florence Crane. The allegations at issue occurred during the time period during which Mr. Lee was incarcerated in the Washtenaw County Jail; thus, presumably during the period of June 9, 2006 through March 13, 2007. As noted above, a First Amended Complaint was filed on November 19, 2009 against these Defendants and others. The only allegations set forth against these Defendants are included in paragraphs 70-73 and allege:
- 1-

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 45 Filed 12/09/09 Pg 12 of 20 Pg ID 188
70. By virtue of the foregoing, defendants Daniel Minzey, Daryl Parker, and Chad Gronda, acting under color of state law, were deliberately indifferent to Mr. Lee's serious medical needs, including but not limited to, severe anxiety, depression, and head trauma.
71. These defendants were subjectively aware of these serious medical needs, and their inaction directly and proximately caused Mr. Lee to suffer cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution as actionable under 42
u.s.c. § 1983.
72. By virtue of the foregoing, defendants Washtenaw County, Daniel Minzey, Daryl Parker, and SecureCare failed to train and supervise and effectuated a custom, policy and practice of inaction with respect to responding to, diagnosing, and treating serious medical needs.
73. These defendants' inadequate training and supervision and custom, policy and practice of inaction were deliberately indifferent and directly and proximately deprived Mr. Lee of his fundamental rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution as actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
(Please see paragraphs 70-73 of Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint attached as Exhibit A)
Given the vague and conclusory nature of Plaintiffs allegations against these Defendants,
Dr. Parker and SecureCare, Inc. are left wondering:
• When did these purported violations occur?
• What treatment or failure to treat constituted a deliberate indifference as claimed by the Plaintiff?
• What were the signs and symptoms demonstrated by Plaintiff (with respect to his claimed "severe anxiety, depression and head trauma") which were not acted upon by Dr. Parker and any other employee, agent or servant of SecureCare, Inc.?
• How did Dr. Parker and SecureCare, Inc.'s alleged acts or failures to act cause Plaintiff, Larry Lee, to sustain injuries and damages?
Those are just a few of the questions that remain unanswered via the allegations set forth
in Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint. As such, Plaintiffs pleading does not state a claim for
-2-

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 45 Filed 12/09/09 Pg 13 of 20 Pg ID 189
which can be granted against these Defendants and accordingly, Dr. Parker and SecureCare, Inc. should be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
STATEMENT OF REVIEW A motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (b)(6) tests the legal sufficiently of the complaint, asking whether the plaintiff has stated a claim for which the law provides relief. Gazette v. City ofPontiac, 41 F.3d 1061, 1064 (61h Cir. 1994). Technically, a 12(b) motion does not attack the merits of the case, it merely challenges the pleader's failure to state a claim properly. In deciding a 12(b)(6) motion, a district court must determine whether the plaintiffs complaint sets forth sufficient allegations to establish a claim for relief. The court must accept all allegations in the Complaint at face value and construe them in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. Windsor v. The Tennessean, 719 F.2d !55, !58 (61h Cir. 1983) and Jackson v. Richards Medical Co., 961 F.2d 575, 577 (61h Cir. 1992). A court need not, however, accept as true legal conclusions or unwarranted factual inferences, Morgan v. Church's Fried Chicken, 829 F.2d I0, 12 (61h Cir. 1987). A district court may properly grant a motion to dismiss when no set of facts exists which would allow the plaintiff to recover, Carter by Carter v. Cornwell, 983 F.2d 52, 54 (61h Cir. 1993).
- 3-

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 45 Filed 12/09/09 Pg 14 of 20 Pg ID 190
LAW AND ARGUMENT I. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM THAT DR. PARKER AND SECURECARE,
INC. WERE DELffiERATELY INDIFFERENT TO HIS MEDICAL NEEDS IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 SHOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO PLEAD ANY FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS IN SUPPORT OF SAME AND PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO PLEAD ANY CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THESE PURPORTED VIOLATIONS AND WHAT INJURIES AND DAMAGES WERE SUSTAINED BY PLAINTIFF AS A RESULT OF THESE DEFENDANTS' ACTIONS OR INACTIONS. Paragraphs 70-73 of Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint allege these Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Mr. Lee's serious medical needs and that such deliberate indifference caused Mr. Lee to suffer cruel and unusual punislunent in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution as actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. These allegations, however, do not set forth a valid claim under§ 1983. In order to establish liability under § 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a person acting under the color of state law deprives another of rights protected by the Constitution or the laws of the United States. Monell v. Dept. ofSocial Services in New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978). The courts have continually held that a violation of§ 1983 does not occur every time a prisoner claims he received inadequate medical treatment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 98101 (1976). Even an inadvertent failure to provide medical care is not actionable. Estelle at p. 105-106. Rather, "a prisoner must allege facts and/or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs." Estelle at p. 106. In his Complaint, Plaintiff does not allege any acts or omissions by Dr. Parker or SecureCare, Inc. which support a claim they acted with deliberate indifference to Mr. Lee's alleged serious medical needs. In fact, the First Amended Complaint does not set forth with any specificity: 1) what the alleged acts or omissions were that constituted deliberate indifference; 2)
- 4-

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 45 Filed 12/09/09 Pg 15 of 20 Pg ID 191
when these purported acts or omissions occurred; 3) how these purported acts or omissions caused Mr. Lee injuries and damages; and 4) what purported serious medical needs were ignored by these Defendants. Thus, as in Estelle, supra, Plaintiff has not alleged acts or omissions by these Defendants to support a violation of§ 1983. Accordingly, paragraphs 70-73 of Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint should be dismissed and Plaintiffs allegations against these Defendants should be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
II. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM AS TO THESE DEFENDANTS PROPERLY SOUNDS IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (IF ANYTHING) AND THUS SHOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUISITE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF THE MICHIGAN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE TORT REFORM ACT, MCL § 600.2912, ET SEQ. WITH RESPECT TO THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF INTENT AND AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT.
Although Plaintiffs Complaint is vague in its allegations that Dr. Parker and SecureCare, Inc. were deliberately indifferent to Mr. Lee's serious medical needs, Plaintiff claim as to these Defendants properly sounds (if at all) in medical malpractice and thus, should be dismissed for failing to the comply with the requisite statutory provisions of the Michigan Medical Malpractice Tort Reform Act set forth at MCL §600. 2912, et seq.,
In Bryant v. Oakpointe Villa Nursing Centre, Inc., 471 Mich. 411; 684 N.W. 2d 864 (2004), the Michigan Supreme Court held that a claim should have been filed as a medical malpractice claim if:
(I) The claim pertains to an action that occurred within the course of a professional relationship; and
(2) the claim raises questions of medical judgment beyond the realm of common knowledge and experience. Bryant at 422.
-5 -

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 45 Filed 12/09/09 Pg 16 of 20 Pg ID 192
According to the Court in Bryant, a "professional relationship" exists when a licensed health care professional is subject to a contractual duty that requires the health care professional to render professional health care services to the decedent. Bryant at 425.
The Court in Bryant further held that "medical judgment beyond the realm of a common knowledge and experience" is necessary, if the reasonableness of the health care professional's actions can only be evaluated by the jury after being presented with standard of care testimony by an expert." Bryant at 423. A Complaint cannot avoid the application of the procedural requirements of a malpractice action by couching its cause of action in terms of ordinary negligence. McLeod v. Plymouth Court Nursing Home, 957 F. Supp. 113, 115 (E.D. Mich. 1997), citing MacDonald v. Barbarotto, 161 Mich. App. 542; 411 N.W. 2d 747 (1987). It is well established that the gravamen of an action is determined by reading the claim as a whole and it is essential to look beyond the procedural labels to determine the exact nature of the claim. Tipton v. William Beaumont Hosp., 266 Mich. App. 27, 33; 697 N.W. 2d 552 (2007).
Here, Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint alleges as to Dr. Parker, a health care professional, that he was deliberately indifferent to Mr. Lee's serious medical needs and that such needs included severe anxiety, depression and head trauma. Although Plaintiffs allegations remain vague and conclusory, whether or not those medical conditions were appropriately treated falls within the ambit of expert testimony. More specifically, determining the propriety of Dr. Parker's actions and whether he complied with the applicable standard of care in treating Mr. Lee constitutes a medical malpractice claim.
In order to file a medical malpractice claim, a plaintiff is required to comply with the Michigan tort reform.2 MCL § 600.2912d; MCL § 600.2912b. Failure to comply with tort
2 If Plaintiff attempts to argue he did not need to comply with the Statutory requirements for filing a claim of Medical Malpractice, this argument is legally incorrect. In Lee v. Putz, W.L. 1791304 (W.D. Mich. 2006), the court addressed this issue. It stated:
Because there is no conflict between § 6000.2912d and the Federal Court Rules, the Court applies the Erie rule to determine if state law should apply. Hanna, 380 U.S. at 470. In applying Erie, the objective is "to insure that, in all cases where a federal court is exercising jurisdiction solely because of the diversity of citizenship of the parties, the outcome of the litigation in the federal
-6-

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 45 Filed 12/09/09 Pg 17 of 20 Pg ID 193
reform requires dismissal. Roberts v. Mecosta General Hosp., 470 Mich 679; 684 N.W. 2d 711 (2004); Nippa v. Botsford General Hosp., 257 Mich App. 387; 668 N.W. 2d 628 (2003). Plaintiffs never mailed a Notice of Intent to Dr. Parker, Nurse Claudette or Washtenaw County Jail as required by MCL § 600.2912d. Plaintiff also failed to file an Affidavit of Merit with their complaint as required by MCL § 600.2912b. Dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is required.
Here, Plaintiff failed to file and properly serve Dr. Parker with a Notice of Intent setting forth the basis of his allegations, as required by MCL § 600.2912d.
Plaintiff also failed to file the requisite Affidavit of Merit as to Dr. Parker, as required by MCL § 600.2912b. Accordingly, dismissal of these allegations is warranted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
III. IN THE ALTERNATNE, DEFENDANTS REQUEST A MORE DEFINITNE STATEMENT.
If the Court is not inclined to dismiss this action as to these Defendants, Dr. Parker and SecureCare, Inc. request that Plaintiff be required to amend his Complaint to set forth a more definitive statement of the claims against these Defendants.
Moreover, Plaintiff should not be allowed to forego the requisite requirements of the Michigan Medical Malpractice Tort Reform Act, including the filing and service of an
courts should be substantially the same, so far as legal rules determine the outcome of the litigation, as if it would be tried in the State court." Guaranty Trust Co. ofNew York v. York, 426 U.S. 99, 109 (1945). With this principle in mind, it is clear that § 600.2912d is substantive in nature. !d. at5. The Lee court concluded that in order to properly file a medical malpractice claim in federal court plaintiff was required to comply with the requirements of Mich. Comp. Law§ 600.2912d. !d. at 5 .
- 7-

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 45 Filed 12/09/09 Pg 18 of 20 Pg ID 194

appropriate Notice of Intent against Dr. Parker and the filing of an Affidavit of Merit signed by qualified healthcare providers delineating the claims as to Dr. Parker.
WHEREFORE, Defendants, DR. PARKER and SECURECARE, INC. respectfully request this Honorable Court dismiss them as Defendants from this action, or in the alternative, require Plaintiff to set forth a more definite statement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e), together with the recovery of all costs and attorney fees.
Respectfully submitted,
PLUNKETT f COONEY

Dated: December 9, 2009

By:/s/ D. Jennifer Andreou D. JENNIFER ANDREOU (P38973) EMILY BALLENBERGER (P64410) Attorneys for Defendants Dr. Parker, & Washtenaw County Jail 10 South Main Street, Suite 400 Mt. Clemens, MI 48043 (586) 466-7607/783-7621

- 8-

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 45 Filed 12/09/09 Pg 19 of 20 Pg ID 195

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DNISION

LARRY LEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

C.A. No.: 2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH

Honorable Arthur J. Tarnow

WASHTENAW COUNTY, DANIEL MINZEY,

Magistrate Michael Hluchaniuk

in his official and individual capacities; CHAD

GRONDA, in his official and individual capacities;

RYAN MCLAUGHLIN, in his official and individual

capacities; JOSEPH FENDT, in his official and

individual capacities; RICK CASEY, in his official

DEFENDANT DR. PARKER &

and individual capacities; RICHARD WILLIAMS, JR., SECURECARE, INC.'S PROOF

in his official and individual capacities; ANTONIO

OF SERVICE

VAUGHN, in his official and individual capacities;

JILL WILLIAMS, in her official and individual capacities;

RICHARD WILLIAMS, SR., in his official and individual

capacities; KURT SCHIAPPACASSE, in his official and

individual capacities; EDWARD MOOREMAN,

in his official and individual capacities; DARYL PARKER,

in his official and individual capacities; SECURECARE, INC.;

JANE DOE, in her official and individual capacities; and

JOHN DOE, in his official and individual capacities.

Defendants.

DAVID A. SANTACROCE (P61367) Attorney for Plaintiff 801 Monroe Street 363 Legal Research Building Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 (734) 763-4319

D. JENNIFER ANDREOU (P38973) EMILY BALLENBERGER (P6441 0) Attorneys for Defendants Dr. Parker
& SecnreCare, Inc. I 0 S. Main Street, Suite 400 Mt. Clemens, MI 48043 (586) 466-7607/783-7621

CYNTHIA L. REACH (P55903) Attorney for Washtenaw County and
Named County Employees 121 W. Washington St. Suite 400 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 (734) 994-1400

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 45 Filed 12/09/09 Pg 20 of 20 Pg ID 196
PROOF OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that on December 9, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing pleading with the Clerk of the Court using ECF system which will send. notification of such filing to the all attorneys of record of all parties in the above cause.
lsi D. Jennifer Andreou
Detroit.00400.93705.1407047-1
- 2-

 
 2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 53 Filed 01/29/10 Pg 1 of 19 Pg ID 267

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION ______________________________________________________________________________ LARRY LEE,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 09-12471

vs.

Hon. Arthur J. Tarnow

Mag. Michael Hluchaniuk

WASHTENAW COUNTY et al.

JURY DEMANDED

Defendants.

______________________________________________________________________________

MICHIGAN CLINICAL LAW PROGRAM

PLUNKETT COONEY

By: DAVID A. SANTACROCE (P61367)

By: D. JENNIFER ANDREOU (P38973)

Attorney for Plaintiff

EMILY BALLENBERGER (P64410)

801 Monroe Street

Attorneys for Defendants Dr. Parker

363 Legal Research Building

& SecureCare, Inc.

Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215

10 S. Main Street, Suite 400

(734) 763-4319

Mt. Clemens, MI 48043

(586) 466-7607/783-7621

REACH LAW FIRM

By: CYNTHIA L. REACH (P55903)

Attorney for Washtenaw County

& Named County Employees

121 W. Washington Street, Suite 400

Ann Arbor, MI 48104

(734) 994-1400

______________________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFF’S BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS PARKER AND SECURECARE’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Dated: January 29, 2010

MICHIGAN CLINICAL LAW PROGRAM By: David A. Santacroce dasanta@umich.edu - P61367
Kate Ides Student Attorney on the Brief

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 53 Filed 01/29/10 Pg 2 of 19 Pg ID 268
TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iii STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED.................................................................................... iv LEGAL STANDARD AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITIES .................................................. v INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................. 1 STANDARD OF REVIEW ............................................................................................................ 3 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 4
I. Response to Defendants' Point I: Mr. Lee Has Plead Sufficient Facts to State a Claim of Deliberate Indifference Against Defendants Parker and SecureCare…………………………………………………….4 A. Defendant Parker .................................................................................................... 4 B. Defendant SecureCare............................................................................................. 7
II. Response to Defendants‟ Point II: Mr. Lee is Not Required to Adhere to The Michigan Medical Malpractice Tort Reform Act When Alleging a Federal Constitutional Health Care Claim…. ............................................................................ 8
III. Response to Defendants‟ Point III: A More Definite Statement of Mr. Lee‟s Claims is Not Warranted............................................................................................................. 10
CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 11 Proof of Service ............................................................................................................................ 12
ii

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 53 Filed 01/29/10 Pg 3 of 19 Pg ID 269
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009) ........................................................................................ 4 Bellecourt v. U.S., 784 F.Supp. 623 (D. Minn. 1992) ............................................................... vi, 9 Blackmore v. Kalamazoo County, 390 F.3d 890 (6th Cir. 2004)................................................ v, 5 Bond v. Rhodes, No. 2:06cv1515, 2008 WL 763737 (W.D. Pa. March 20, 2008).................... vi, 9 Bonds v. Williamson, No. 1:08CV78, 2008 WL 4700703 (N.D. W.Va. Oct. 21, 2008) ........ vi, 8-9 Bryant v. Oakpointe Villa Nursing Centre, Inc., 471 Mich. 411 (2004). ................................ 9-10 Burton v. Kakani, No. 09-10893, 2009 WL 3101046, at *3-4 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 23, 2009) ....... 5-6 Chapman v. Chandra, No. 06-cv-0651-MJR, 2007 WL 1655799 (S.D. Ill. June 5, 2007)....... vi, 9 DirecTV, Inc. v. Treesh, 487 F.3d 471 (6th Cir. 2007) ................................................................... 4 Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976). .......................................................................................... v Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) ................................................................................... v, 5 Garrison v. Davis, No. 06-13258, 2009 WL 1508293 (E.D. Mich. May 29, 2009).................... 7-8 Gay v. Chandra, 652 F.Supp.2d 959 (S.D. Ill. 2009) ..................................................................... 6 Haywood v. Marathon County Sheriff Dept., No. 07-C-341-C, 2007 WL 5633391 (W.D. Wis.
Aug. 03, 2007) ............................................................................................................................ 5 Hicks v. Frey, 992 F.2d 1450 (6th Cir. 1993) ................................................................................. 7 Johnson v. Karnes, 398 F.3d 868 (6th Cir. 2005)........................................................................... 7 MacDonald v. Barbarotto, 161 Mich.App. 542 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987)....................................... 10 McLeod v. Plymouth Court Nursing Home, 957 F.Supp. 113 (E.D. Mich. 1997)........................ 10 Mohammed v. Donate, No. 4:07-CV-1048, 2008 WL 275724 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 30, 2008) ......... vi, 9 Reyes v. City of Trenton, No. 05-1882 (MLC), 2007 WL 1038482 (D.N.J. March 30, 2007)....... 6 Rivers v. Roszko, No. Civ S-04-2524 GEB EFB P, 2008 WL 3932446 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2008)
..................................................................................................................................................... 5 Scott v. Ambani, 577 F.3d 642 (6th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................ 6 Tipton v. William Beaumont Hosp., 266 Mich.App. 27 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005) ........................... 10 Statutes 42 U.S.C. § 1983............................................................................................................................. 1 FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a) ...................................................................................................................... 3-4 FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) .................................................................................................... 1, 4, 5, 11 FED. R. CIV. P. 12(e) ..................................................................................................... vi-vii, 10-11 Other Authorities The Michigan Medical Malpractice Tort Reform Act, MCL § 600.2912, et seq .............. v, 1, 8-10
iii

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 53 Filed 01/29/10 Pg 4 of 19 Pg ID 270
STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED 1. Should the Court deny defendants Daryl Parker and SecureCare, Inc.‟s motion to dismiss
where Mr. Lee has plead sufficient factual matter to state a claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against each defendant? Mr. Lee says yes. 2. Should the Court deny defendants Daryl Parker and SecureCare, Inc.‟s motion to dismiss where Mr. Lee had no obligation under federal or state law to comply with The Michigan Medical Malpractice Tort Reform Act, MCL § 600.2912, et seq? Mr. Lee says yes. 3. Should the Court compel Mr. Lee to set forth a more definite statement of the claims against defendants when defendants have already filed a responsive pleading? Mr. Lee says no.
iv

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 53 Filed 01/29/10 Pg 5 of 19 Pg ID 271
LEGAL STANDARD AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITIES 1. Deliberate Indifference to a Serious Medical Need
The Eighth Amendment proscribes deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). To state a claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, “a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference.” Id. at 106. The deliberate indifference standard was further refined by the Supreme Court in Farmer v. Brennan. In Farmer, the Court stated that deliberate indifference claims are comprised of an objective and subjective component. Farmer, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). The objective component requires that the plaintiff allege a “sufficiently serious” medical need. Blackmore v. Kalamazoo County, 390 F.3d 890, 897 (6th Cir. 2004). “A medical need is objectively serious if it is one that has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one that is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor‟s attention.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
The second, subjective component requires that the plaintiff allege that the prison official “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. As to the second component, the plaintiff “need not show that that prison official acted or failed to act believing that harm actually would befall an inmate; it is enough that the official acted or failed to act despite his knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm.” Id. at 842. 2. Compliance with The Michigan Medical Malpractice Tort Reform Act
The requisite statutory provisions of The Michigan Medical Malpractice Tort Reform Act, MCL § 600.2912, et seq, apply to state-law medical malpractice claims and not Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims. Federal practice illustrates that when a plaintiff files
v

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 53 Filed 01/29/10 Pg 6 of 19 Pg ID 272
a state-law medical malpractice claim and a constitutional deliberate indifference claim in federal court, the courts can and will dismiss the pendent state-law medical malpractice claim for failing to comply with the state‟s requisite statutory provisions. See Bonds v. Williamson, No. 1:08CV78, 2008 WL 4700703, at *4-6 (N.D. W.Va. Oct. 21, 2008) (dismissing a medical malpractice claim for failure to comply with the requisite statutory provisions while allowing plaintiff‟s deliberate indifference claim to proceed); Bond v. Rhodes, No. 2:06cv1515, 2008 WL 763737, at *3 (W.D. Pa. March 20, 2008) (dismissing a medical malpractice claim for failure to comply with the requisite statutory provisions while allowing plaintiff‟s deliberate indifference claim to proceed); Mohammed v. Donate, No. 4:07-CV-1048, 2008 WL 275724, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 30, 2008) (dismissing a medical malpractice claim for failure to comply with the requisite statutory provisions while allowing plaintiff‟s deliberate indifference claim to proceed); Chapman v. Chandra, No. 06-cv-0651-MJR, 2007 WL 1655799, at *4-6 (S.D. Ill. June 5, 2007) (dismissing plaintiff‟s medical malpractice claim for failure to comply with the state‟s requisite statutory provisions while allowing deliberate indifference claims to proceed); Bellecourt v. U.S., 784 F.Supp. 623, 633-37 (D. Minn. 1992) (dismissing a medical malpractice claim for failure to comply with the requisite statutory provisions while dismissing deliberate indifference claims on federal law grounds). 3. Motion for a More Definite Statement
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) provides that “a party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(e).
vi

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 53 Filed 01/29/10 Pg 7 of 19 Pg ID 273 Accordingly, Rule 12(e) requires that a “motion be made before filing a responsive pleading . . . .” Id.
vii

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 53 Filed 01/29/10 Pg 8 of 19 Pg ID 274
INTRODUCTION In their Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, defendants Daryl Parker and SecureCare, Inc. argue that plaintiff, Larry Lee, has failed to plead any factual allegations in support of his claims of deliberate indifference.1 Defendants‟ argument fails because it relies only upon the legal claims alleged against them in paragraphs 70 to 73 of the First Amended Complaint (hereinafter “Complaint”). Defendants completely ignore the multiple, substantive factual allegations pled earlier in the complaint upon which the legal claims expressly rest. These substantive factual allegations plainly support Mr. Lee‟s legal claims of deliberate indifference against defendants Parker and SecureCare. Defendants also argue that Mr. Lee‟s deliberate indifference claims should be dismissed because he failed to comply with provisions of The Michigan Medical Malpractice Tort Reform Act, MCL § 600.2912, et seq. This argument fails because the law does not require a prisoner to comply with the provisions of a state-law malpractice act when filing a federal constitutional health care claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in federal court.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS Mr. Lee alleges that the defendants, motivated by animus towards homosexuals, violated his constitutional rights while he was incarcerated in Washtenaw County Jail (the “Jail”). (Compl. ¶ 2.) Mr. Lee alleges that the defendants turned a blind-eye to sexual assaults against him by inmates (Id. at ¶ 69 ), sexual assaults against him by a correctional officer (Id. at ¶¶ 5962), physical assaults against him by inmates (Id. at ¶ 66-9), and sexual harassment against him by inmates and correctional officers alike (Id.). The degree and variety of harassment and abuse allegedly suffered by Mr. Lee was significant: he endured eating food polluted with human feces
1 Defendants failed to comply with E.D. Mich. 7.1(a) by filing this motion to dismiss without ascertaining whether Mr. Lee would concur or oppose any or all aspects of the motion.
1

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 53 Filed 01/29/10 Pg 9 of 19 Pg ID 275

(Id. at ¶¶ 40, 43-5, & 47), being doused with urine (Id. at ¶ 29), being subjected to physical

threats (Id. at. ¶¶ 31 & 37), and being regularly called derogatory, anti-homosexual names (Id. at

¶ 35).

As to defendants Daryl Parker and SecureCare, Inc. (hereinafter “SecureCare”), in the

Complaint under the heading of “Legal Claims,” Mr. Lee alleges that the defendants were

deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs thus subjecting him to cruel and unusual

punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States

Constitution. (Id. at ¶¶ 70-3.) He supports these legal claims with factual allegations pled

against these defendants earlier in the Complaint under the heading “Factual Allegations.”

These allegations begin by defining Dr. Parker‟s and SecureCare‟s obligations to deliver – and

role in delivering – health care to Mr. Lee while in the Jail. Specifically, Mr. Lee alleges that:

-

defendant SecureCare is a for-profit Michigan corporation that, at all relevant

times, was under contract to provide medical services to the inmates incarcerated at the Jail (Id.

at ¶ 9);

-

defendant SecureCare helped to formulate and implement the customs, policies,

practices, procedures, and protocols related to the delivery of medical services in the Jail (Id.);

-

defendant Parker was a physician providing medical services to inmates at the

Jail, including Mr. Lee (Id. at ¶ 10); and

-

defendant Parker contracted with or was employed by defendant SecureCare to

provide healthcare, and to design and implement defendant SecureCare‟s customs, policies,

practices, procedures, and protocols related to the provision of medical services in the Jail (Id.).

Mr. Lee further alleges that, approximately one month after he entered the Jail, he struck

his head against a utility box mounted against the wall. (Id. at ¶ 25.) Upon striking his head, Mr.

Lee fell and further injured his head against the wall and the floor. (Id.) Despite requesting

medical attention, he was moved to a holding cell where he began to bleed from his ear and nose

and vomit. (Id. at ¶ 26.) As a result of the head trauma, he also suffered blurred vision and

headaches, symptoms that persisted long after the injury. (Id. at ¶ 27.) Despite these symptoms,

2

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 53 Filed 01/29/10 Pg 10 of 19 Pg ID 276
defendant Parker did not examine Mr. Lee until three days after the injury, and “defendant Parker failed to properly diagnose and treat Mr. Lee [for this injury] at that time or at any time in the future.” (Id.)
Mr. Lee also makes clear in his complaint that, “throughout his incarceration,” he complained to defendant Parker and other medical staff about headaches, in addition to panic attacks brought on by the abuse he endured while at the Jail. (Id. at ¶ 55, emphasis added.) On several occasions, Mr. Lee requested that defendant Parker place him in the medical unit. (Id.) These requests were denied. (Id.)
In addition to the headaches and panic attacks, Mr. Lee complained of sleep deprivation, hallucinations, and depression on several occasions. (Id. at. ¶ 56.) Because of these symptoms, Mr. Lee alleges he made requests to defendant Parker to see a psychiatrist and a neurologist. (Id.) Despite Mr. Lee‟s ongoing complaints of panic attacks and depression, these requests were continually denied. (Id.) Finally, in or around late February early March of 2007, some eight months after this all began, Mr. Lee was treated and diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder stemming from the abuse suffered while incarcerated at the Jail. (Id. at ¶ 57.) Mr. Lee had no history of mental illness prior to his incarceration. (Id. at ¶ 56.) As to all of these specific allegations of health failures, Mr. Lee also alleges that defendant SecureCare failed to train and supervise its employees and “effectuated a custom, policy and practice of inaction with respect to responding to, diagnosing, and treating serious medical needs.” (Id. at ¶ 73.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) states that a plaintiff must provide no more than “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). Though Rule 8 requires more than vague legal conclusions, it does not require
3

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 53 Filed 01/29/10 Pg 11 of 19 Pg ID 277
“detailed factual allegations.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949-50 (2009) (noting that “Rule 8 marks a notable and generous departure from the hyper-technical, code pleading regime of a prior era . . . ”). A complaint will survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) if it contains sufficient factual matter to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). All factual allegations contained within a complaint, distinct from legal conclusions, are entitled to an assumption of truth. Id. When reviewing a motion to dismiss, the court shall “construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff . . . [and] draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” DirecTV, Inc. v. Treesh, 487 F.3d 471, 476 (6th Cir. 2007).
ARGUMENT I. Response to Defendants’ Point I:
Mr. Lee has Plead Sufficient Facts to State a Claim of Deliberate Indifference Against Defendants Parker and SecureCare Defendants Parker and SecureCare argue that Mr. Lee has failed to plead any factual allegations in support of his deliberate indifference claims against them. Defendants‟ argument is simply wrong because it ignores the substantive, factual allegations pled in the first 58 paragraphs of the Complaint and relies only on paragraphs 70 to 73, the summary legal claims against them. Had defendants considered the first 58 paragraphs of the Complaint, they would have seen that Mr. Lee not only pled factual allegations against each of them, but that those allegations are plainly sufficient to state a claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution. A. Defendant Parker To make out a claim of deliberate indifference against defendant Parker, Mr. Lee need only allege: (i) that he had a sufficiently serious medical need; (ii) that defendant Parker knew of
4

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 53 Filed 01/29/10 Pg 12 of 19 Pg ID 278
this medical need; and (iii) that defendant Parker disregarded this medical need. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 824, 834, 837 (1994); Blackmore v. Kalamazoo County, 390 F.3d 890, 897 (6th Cir. 2004). Mr. Lee has met and exceeded this standard.
First, Mr. Lee alleges that he exhibited a sufficiently serious medical need – a head trauma that resulted in persistent, blurred vision and chronic headaches. (Compl. ¶¶ 25-7.) See Rivers v. Roszko, No. Civ S-04-2524 GEB EFB P, 2008 WL 3932446, at *10 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2008) (finding that a severe head injury is a serious medical need); Haywood v. Marathon County Sheriff Dept., No. 07-C-341-C, 2007 WL 5633391, at *4 (W.D. Wis. Aug. 03, 2007) (concluding that the head injury which resulted from plaintiff receiving a blow to the head and then subsequently hitting his head on the floor could constitute a serious medical need).2
Next, Mr. Lee alleges that defendant Parker knew of and disregarded Mr. Lee‟s closed head injury, blurred vision, and chronic headaches. (Compl. ¶¶ 27 & 55.) Specifically, Mr. Lee alleges that, despite bleeding from his nose and ear, vomiting, blurred vision, and persistent headaches, defendant Parker did not examine him until three days after he struck his head (Id. at ¶ 27); that he complained to defendant Parker and other medical staff about the resulting chronic headaches “throughout his incarceration” (Id. at ¶ 55); and that, at the time of the initial examination for the injury and “at any time in the future,” defendant Parker “failed to properly diagnose or treat” Mr. Lee for this condition. (Id. at ¶ 27).
Mr. Lee‟s allegations against Defendant Parker are striking similar to those plead by the plaintiff in Burton v. Kakani where the district court denied the defendants‟ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. See No. 09-10893, 2009 WL 3101046, at *3-4 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 23, 2009)
2 Mr. Lee alleges that his closed head injury resulted from striking his head against the mounted utility box and then further injuring his head as he fell against the wall and then the floor. (Compl. ¶ 25.)
5

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 53 Filed 01/29/10 Pg 13 of 19 Pg ID 279
(concluding that the plaintiff had made out a claim of deliberate indifference against treating physicians by alleging that he had a sufficiently serious medical need, pain from a swollen testicle, that defendants received complaints of plaintiff‟s pain and examined plaintiff, and that it took defendants a month to provide medication for the pain).
Mr. Lee also complains that defendant Parker was deliberately indifferent to a second, sufficiently serious medical need – mental illness. (Compl. ¶¶ 55-6.) See Gay v. Chandra, 652 F.Supp.2d 959, 974 (S.D. Ill. 2009) (finding that “mental illnesses that require treatment are „serious medical needs‟ within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment” (citation omitted)); Reyes v. City of Trenton, No. 05-1882 (MLC), 2007 WL 1038482, at *8 (D.N.J. March 30, 2007) (finding that panic attacks “constitute a serious medical need”). Mr. Lee alleges that defendant Parker both knew of and disregarded this serious medical need. In particular, he alleges that he repeatedly complained to defendant Parker and other medical staff about panic attacks, sleep deprivation, hallucinations, and depression (Compl. ¶¶ 55-6); that he made requests to defendant Parker to see a psychiatrist and a neurologist (Id.); that he made requests to be placed in the medical unit (Id.); that defendant Parker denied his requests to be placed in the medical unit (Id. at ¶ 55); that defendant Parker denied his requests for mental and neurological health care until almost eight months into his incarceration (Id. at ¶ 56); and that Mr. Lee suffered Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result of the Jail conditions and the failure of medical care (Id. at ¶ 57). These facts are more than sufficient to support Mr. Lee‟s claim of deliberate indifference. See Scott v. Ambani, 577 F.3d 642, 648 (6th Cir. 2009) (reversing district court‟s dismissal of deliberate indifference claim as erroneous where the plaintiff alleged a serious medical need, that defendant had received complaints about the need, and that defendant disregarded the need by waiting six months to address it).
6

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 53 Filed 01/29/10 Pg 14 of 19 Pg ID 280
B. Defendant SecureCare In order to make out a claim of deliberate indifference against defendant SecureCare, Mr. Lee need only allege: (i) that SecureCare contracts with Washtenaw County to perform traditional state functions; and (ii) that SecureCare‟s custom, policy, or practice caused the constitutional violation complained of by Mr. Lee. See Johnson v. Karnes, 398 F.3d 868, 877 (6th Cir. 2005). Mr. Lee has done just that. Specifically, Mr. Lee alleges that defendant SecureCare contracted with the Jail to perform a traditional state function, providing healthcare to inmates. (Compl. ¶ 6.) See Hicks v. Frey, 992 F.2d 1450, 1458 (6th Cir. 1993) (concluding that a private contractor dispensing healthcare to inmates performs a traditional state function). Mr. Lee further alleges that defendant SecureCare “effectuated a custom, policy and practice of inaction with respect to responding to, diagnosing, and treating serious medical needs,” and that their policy of inaction directly and proximately caused the deprivation of his fundamental rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. (Compl. ¶¶ 72-3, emphasis added.) As evidence of this policy of inaction, Mr. Lee alleges that defendant Parker, who was charged with implementing SecureCare‟s customs and practices (Id. at ¶ 10), carried out defendant SecureCare‟s policy of inaction by exhibiting deliberate indifferent to Mr. Lee‟s serious medical needs, namely the head trauma resulting in blurred vision and chronic headaches and his mental illness. In this manner, the factual allegations underpinning the claim of deliberate indifference against defendant Parker are the same factual allegations that support the claim of deliberate indifference against defendant SecureCare. These facts are sufficient to support Mr. Lee‟s deliberate indifference claim against defendant SecureCare. See Garrison v. Davis, No. 06-13258, 2009 WL 1508293,
7

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 53 Filed 01/29/10 Pg 15 of 19 Pg ID 281
at *3 (E.D. Mich. May 29, 2009) (denying private medical services provider‟s motion to dismiss and concluding that the plaintiff had plead sufficient facts against defendant medical services provider by merely alleging that the provider had an unwritten policy of denying medications to cut costs for profit and by alleging that a nurse had informed plaintiff that staff were not authorized to prescribe certain expensive medications). II. Response to Defendants’ Point II:
Mr. Lee is Not Required to Adhere to The Michigan Medical Malpractice Tort Reform Act When Alleging a Federal Constitutional Health Care Claim Defendants next assert that Mr. Lee‟s claims against them properly sound in medical malpractice, and as such, they should be dismissed for failing to comply with the requisite statutory provisions of The Michigan Medical Malpractice Tort Reform Act, MCL § 600.2912, et seq (hereinafter “Michigan Malpractice Act”). Defendants‟ attempt to graft state-law medical malpractice filing requirements onto federal constitutional health care claims is not supported by any law plaintiff could locate or that defendants cite. Simply put, Mr. Lee‟s Eighth Amendment claim stands or falls on Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. As the master of his complaint, Mr. Lee chose to file a deliberate indifference claim, not a state-law medical malpractice claim. As such, state-law medical malpractice filing requirements have no bearing on his Eighth Amendment claim. While a deliberate indifference claim can be accompanied by a pendent state-law claim, the two are based on independent legal grounds – one state and one federal – and are regularly treated as such. Thus, when a plaintiff files both a state-law medical malpractice claim and a constitutional deliberate indifference claim in federal court, courts can and will dismiss the pendent state-law medical malpractice claim for failing to comply with the state‟s requisite statutory provisions while permitting the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim to
8

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 53 Filed 01/29/10 Pg 16 of 19 Pg ID 282
proceed irrespective of compliance with the state-law provisions. See Bonds v. Williamson, No. 1:08CV78, 2008 WL 4700703, at *4-6 (N.D. W.Va. Oct. 21, 2008) (dismissing a medical malpractice claim for failure to comply with the requisite statutory provisions while allowing plaintiff‟s deliberate indifference claim to proceed); Bond v. Rhodes, No. 2:06cv1515, 2008 WL 763737, at *3 (W.D. Pa. March 20, 2008) (dismissing a medical malpractice claim for failure to comply with the requisite statutory provisions while allowing plaintiff‟s deliberate indifference claim to proceed); Mohammed v. Donate, No. 4:07-CV-1048, 2008 WL 275724, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 30, 2008) (dismissing a medical malpractice claim for failure to comply with the requisite statutory provisions while allowing plaintiff‟s deliberate indifference claim to proceed); Chapman v. Chandra, No. 06-cv-0651-MJR, 2007 WL 1655799, at *4-6 (S.D. Ill. June 5, 2007) (dismissing plaintiff‟s medical malpractice claim for failure to comply with the state‟s requisite statutory provisions while allowing deliberate indifference claims to proceed); Bellecourt v. U.S., 784 F.Supp. 623, 633-37 (D. Minn. 1992) (dismissing a medical malpractice claim for failure to comply with the requisite statutory provisions while dismissing deliberate indifference claims on federal law grounds).
The cases defendants rely upon do not support grafting the procedural requirements of the Michigan Malpractice Act onto Mr. Lee‟s Eighth Amendment claims. The case defendants most heavily rely on, Bryant v. Oakpointe Villa Nursing Centre, Inc., stands only for the proposition that when a plaintiff files a state-law negligence claim that arises out of a professional relationship and raises questions of medical judgment requiring expert testimony, the claim should be plead as medical malpractice and the claim should comply with the Michigan Malpractice Act. 471 Mich. 411 (2004). Essentially, Bryant stands for the proposition that a plaintiff may not escape complying with the requisite statutory provisions applicable to
9

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 53 Filed 01/29/10 Pg 17 of 19 Pg ID 283
state-law medical malpractice claims by disguising medical malpractice as ordinary negligence. Id. Bryant cannot be read to stand for the proposition that requisite statutory provisions of state law govern the pleading requirements of federal constitutional claims.3
The defendants have not cited a single federal case wherein a plaintiff in Michigan, or some other state with comparable statutory scheme, was required to comply with the state‟s requisite statutory scheme when pleading a federal constitutional deliberate indifference claim. There is simply no legal justification for defendants‟ argument and it should be denied. III. Response to Defendants’ Point III:
A More Definite Statement of Mr. Lee’s Claims is Not Warranted Alternatively, the defendants request that Mr. Lee be compelled to amend his Complaint to set forth a more “definitive [sic] statement of the claims” against defendants Parker and SecureCare. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) provides that a party may move for a more definite statement where a pleading is so “vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(e). The rule, on its face, requires that “[t]he motion must be made before filing a responsive pleading . . . . ” Id. (emphasis added). The purpose of a Rule 12(e) motion, as derived from its plain language, is to compel a more definite statement of the
3 The other cases which the defendants cite stand for similar propositions, and none stand for the proposition that a plaintiff filing a deliberate indifference claim must comply with the requisite statutory provisions pertaining to state-law medical malpractice claims. See McLeod v. Plymouth Court Nursing Home, 957 F.Supp. 113 (E.D. Mich. 1997) (holding that where plaintiff may pursue either an ordinary negligence claim or medical malpractice claim, the plaintiff may proceed on the ordinary negligence claim so long as the plaintiff is not simply couching medical malpractice as ordinary negligence and deriving some benefit by doing so); Tipton v. William Beaumont Hosp., 266 Mich.App. 27 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005) (applying Bryant and concluding that plaintiff‟s claims under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act properly sound in medical malpractice); MacDonald v. Barbarotto, 161 Mich.App. 542 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987) (holding that plaintiff cannot avoid having the medical malpractice period of limitation apply simply by disguising medical malpractice as fraud, misrepresentation, or ordinary negligence).
10

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 53 Filed 01/29/10 Pg 18 of 19 Pg ID 284

claims against defendant so that he is able to file a responsive pleading. The purpose of the Rule is undermined once the defendant has filed his answer; a filed responsive pleading is essentially a concession that the claims are not “vague or ambiguous.”
Here, defendants filed their answer contemporaneously with their motion to dismiss. Clearly Mr. Lee‟s Complaint is not so “vague or ambiguous” as to prevent them from preparing (and filing) an answer. Moreover, even assuming arguendo that Mr. Lee‟s claims were too vague, defendants are well aware of the nature of the claims against them: their own initial disclosures are replete with Mr. Lee‟s inmate medical kites requesting treatment for chronic headaches, poor vision, and the various symptoms of his mental illness.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff Larry Lee respectfully requests that the Court deny defendants Parker and SecureCare‟s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and give Mr. Lee his costs of defending this motion, together with any other further and different relief that the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: January 29, 2010

Respectfully submitted,
s/David A. Santacroce Michigan Clinical Law Program Attorney for Plaintiff 363 Legal Research Building 801 Monroe Street Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 (734) 763-4319 dasanta@umich.edu - P61367
Kate Ides Student Attorney for the Plaintiff

11

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 53 Filed 01/29/10 Pg 19 of 19 Pg ID 285

Proof of Service The above brief in opposition to defendants Daryl Parker and SecureCare, Inc.‟s motion to dismiss was filed using the Court‟s ECF system, which will send same-day email notice to all counsel of record.

Dated: January 29, 2010

s/David A. Santacroce dasanta@umich.edu - P61367

12

 
 2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 58 Filed 04/12/10 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 297

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

LARRY LEE,
Plaintiff, v.
WASHTENAW COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants. /

Case No. 09-12471
DISTRICT JUDGE ARTHUR J. TARNOW
MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL HLUCHANIUK

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS DR. PARKER AND SECURECARE, INC.’S
MOTION TO DISMISS [45]
Before the Court is Defendants Dr. Parker and SecureCare, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss
[45]. On April 9, 2010, the Court heard arguments on the Motion.
For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Dr. Parker and SecureCare, Inc.’s Motion
to Dismiss [45] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED.
S/ARTHUR J. TARNOW Arthur J. Tarnow United States District Judge
Dated: April 12, 2010
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on April 12, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LISA M. WARE Case Manager

 
 2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 99 Filed 11/28/12 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1391

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

_____________________________

LARRY LEE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Hon.

Mag.

WASHTENAW COUNTY; DANIEL MINZEY,

in his official and individual capacities; CHAD

GRONDA, in his official and individual capacities;

RYAN MCLAUGHLIN, in his official and

individual capacities; JOSEPH FENDT, in his

official and individual capacities; KIRK FILSINGER,

in his official and individual capacities; ANTONIO VAUGHN,

in his official and individual capacities; JILL

WILLIAMS, in her official and individual capacities;

RICHARD WILLIAMS, SR, in his official and

individual capacities; KURT SCHIAPPACASSE,

in his official and individual capacities;

EDWARD MOOREMAN, in his official and

individual capacities; DARYL PARKER, in his

official and individual capacities; SECURECARE, INC;

JANE DOE, in her official and individual capacities; and

JOHN DOE, in his official and individual capacities.

Case No. 09-12471 Arthur J. Tarnow Michael Hluchaniuk
Jury Demanded

Defendants.

STIPULATED ORDER TO DISMISS
The parties, through their c ounsel, hereby stipulate and agre e, and the Court so orders, that this case is dismissed with prejudice and without costs to any party as against each and every

1

2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH Doc # 99 Filed 11/28/12 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1392

defendant named in plaintiff’s com plaint and amended complaints, including the Jane and John Doe defendants. This order disposes of all the remaining claims in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED,

Dated: November 28, 2012

s/Arthur J. Tarnow Honorable Arthur J. Tarnow U.S. District Court Judge

I stipulate to and voluntarily agree to entry of the above Order.

s/David A. Santacroce David A. Santacroce (P61367) Michigan Clinical Law Program Attorneys for Plaintiff 363 Legal Research Bldg. 801 Monroe Street Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 (734) 763-4319 dasanta@umich.edu

s/ with consent of Paul J. Dwaihy Paul J. Dwaihy (P66074) D. Jennifer Andreou (P38973) Plunkett Cooney Attorneys for Defendants SecureCare, Inc. and Dr. Parker 10 S. Main Street, Ste. 400 Mt. Clemens, MI 48043 (586) 466-7607 jandreou@plunkettcooney.com

s/ with consent of Ian James Reach Ian James Reach (P25316) Reach Law Firm Attorneys for Washtenaw Defendants 106 N. Fourth Ave. Ann Arbor, MI 48104 (734) 994-1400 ijreach@reachlawfirm.com

2

 
 Case: 2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH As of: 05/10/2013 11:19 AM EDT 1 of 12
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:09−cv−12471−AJT−MJH

CLOSED

Lee v. Washtenaw County et al Assigned to: District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow Referred to: Magistrate Judge Michael J. Hluchaniuk Cause: No cause code entered
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 06/23/2009 Date Terminated: 11/28/2012 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Larry Lee

represented by David A. Santacroce University of Michigan 801 Monroe Street 363 Legal Research Building Ann Arbor, MI 48109−1215 734−763−4319 Fax: 734−764−4702 Email: dasanta@umich.edu ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Heather A. Glazer Fieger, Fieger, Kenney, Johnson &Giroux, PC 19390 W. Ten Mile Road Southfield, MI 48075−2463 248−355−5555 Fax: 248−355−1445 Email: h.glazer@fiegerlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert M. Giroux , Jr. Fieger, Fieger, 19390 W. Ten Mile Road Southfield, MI 48075−2463 248−355−5555 Email: rgiroux@fiegerlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Washtenaw County

represented by Cynthia L. Reach Reach Law Firm The Land Title Building 106 N. Fourth Ave., Ste. 100 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 734−994−1400 Fax: 734−994−6615 Email: creach@reachlawfirm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ian J. Reach Reach Law Firm 106 N. Fourth Ave. Suite 100 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 734−994−1400 Email: ijreach@reachlawfirm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH As of: 05/10/2013 11:19 AM EDT 2 of 12

Defendant Washtenaw County Jail
Defendant Grondo Deputy
Defendant McGlauglan Deputy
Defendant Justice Deputy Defendant Smalls Deputy Defendant Fendt Deputy

represented by Cynthia L. Reach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Diane J. Andreou Plunkett, Cooney 10 S. Main Street Suite 400 Mt. Clemens, MI 48043 586−465−7000 Fax: 586−465−0448 Email: jandreou@plunkettcooney.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emily M. Ballenberger Zausmer, Kaufman, August, Caldwell &Tayler 31700 Middlebelt Road Suite 150 Farmington HIlls, MI 48334−2374 248−851−4111 Fax: 248−851−0100 Email: eballenberger@zkact.com TERMINATED: 07/28/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cynthia L. Reach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ian J. Reach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cynthia L. Reach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ian J. Reach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cynthia L. Reach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cynthia L. Reach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cynthia L. Reach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ian J. Reach

Case: 2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH As of: 05/10/2013 11:19 AM EDT 3 of 12

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Casey Deputy

represented by Cynthia L. Reach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ian J. Reach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Williams Deputy

represented by Cynthia L. Reach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ian J. Reach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Riech Deputy

represented by Cynthia L. Reach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Powder Deputy

represented by Cynthia L. Reach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Vaughn Deputy

represented by Cynthia L. Reach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ian J. Reach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Jill Williams Deputy

represented by Cynthia L. Reach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ian J. Reach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Williams Sergeant

represented by Cynthia L. Reach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ian J. Reach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

represented by

Case: 2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH As of: 05/10/2013 11:19 AM EDT 4 of 12

Goldman Sergeant

Cynthia L. Reach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Ship Sergeant

represented by Cynthia L. Reach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ian J. Reach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Casey Sergeant

represented by Cynthia L. Reach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ian J. Reach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Alvers Sergeant

represented by Cynthia L. Reach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
John Does TERMINATED: 10/16/2009

Defendant
Jane Does TERMINATED: 10/16/2009

Defendant Jim Minzey

represented by Cynthia L. Reach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ian J. Reach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Edward Mooreman

represented by Cynthia L. Reach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ian J. Reach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Parker Doctor

represented by Diane J. Andreou (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Emily M. Ballenberger (See above for address)

Case: 2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH As of: 05/10/2013 11:19 AM EDT 5 of 12

TERMINATED: 07/28/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul J. Dwaihy Plunkett Cooney 10 S. Main Street Suite 400 Mt. Clemens, MI 48043 586−783−7621 Fax: 586−465−0448 Email: pdwaihy@plunkettcooney.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Jerry Campbell

Defendant Carmelita Reyes

represented by Cynthia L. Reach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Callista Scotto

Defendant SecureCare, Incorporated

represented by Diane J. Andreou (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Emily M. Ballenberger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul J. Dwaihy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Filsinger Kirk

represented by Ian J. Reach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Kurt Schiappacasse

represented by Ian J. Reach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Richard Williams, SR

represented by Ian J. Reach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 06/23/2009 06/23/2009

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed by Larry Lee against defendants (PPau) (Entered: 06/24/2009)
2 APPLICATION to Proceed without prepayment of fees by Larry Lee. (PPau) (Entered: 06/24/2009)

Case: 2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH As of: 05/10/2013 11:19 AM EDT 6 of 12

06/23/2009 06/29/2009 07/13/2009
07/14/2009 08/24/2009 08/26/2009 09/01/2009 09/01/2009 09/01/2009 09/01/2009 09/01/2009 09/01/2009 09/01/2009 09/01/2009 09/01/2009 09/01/2009 09/01/2009 09/01/2009 09/01/2009 09/01/2009 09/01/2009 09/01/2009 09/01/2009 09/01/2009

3 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Larry Lee. (PPau) (Entered: 06/24/2009)
4 ORDER Granting 2 Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees. Signed by District Judge Arthur J Tarnow. (NHol) (Entered: 06/29/2009)
5 ORDER Granting and Directing Payment of an Initial Partial Filing Fee in the amount of $0 and subsequent payments. Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen. (EBro) (Entered: 07/13/2009)
6 ACKNOWLEDGMENT from U.S. Marshal Service of Receipt of Service of Process Documents. (LGra) (Entered: 07/14/2009)
7 ORDER granting 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by District Judge Arthur J Tarnow. (TTay) (Entered: 08/24/2009)
8 NOTICE of Appearance by David A. Santacroce on behalf of Larry Lee. (Santacroce, David) (Entered: 08/26/2009)
9 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Carmelita Reyes waiver sent on 7/15/2009, answer due 9/14/2009. (NHol) (Entered: 09/01/2009)
10 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Washtenaw County waiver sent on 7/15/2009, answer due 9/14/2009. (NHol) (Entered: 09/01/2009)
11 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Washtenaw County Jail waiver sent on 7/15/2009, answer due 9/14/2009. (NHol) (Entered: 09/01/2009)
12 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Grondo waiver sent on 7/15/2009, answer due 9/14/2009. (NHol) (Entered: 09/01/2009)
13 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. McGlauglan waiver sent on 7/15/2009, answer due 9/14/2009. (NHol) (Entered: 09/01/2009)
14 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Justice waiver sent on 7/15/2009, answer due 9/14/2009. (NHol) (Entered: 09/01/2009)
15 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Smalls waiver sent on 7/15/2009, answer due 9/14/2009. (NHol) (Entered: 09/01/2009)
16 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Fendt waiver sent on 7/15/2009, answer due 9/14/2009. (NHol) (Entered: 09/01/2009)
17 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Casey(Deputy) waiver sent on 7/15/2009, answer due 9/14/2009. (NHol) (Entered: 09/01/2009)
18 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Williams waiver sent on 7/15/2009, answer due 9/14/2009. (NHol) (Entered: 09/01/2009)
19 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Riech waiver sent on 7/15/2009, answer due 9/14/2009. (NHol) (Entered: 09/01/2009)
20 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Powder waiver sent on 7/15/2009, answer due 9/14/2009. (NHol) (Entered: 09/01/2009)
21 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Vaughn waiver sent on 7/15/2009, answer due 9/14/2009. (NHol) (Entered: 09/01/2009)
22 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Goldman waiver sent on 7/15/2009, answer due 9/14/2009. (NHol) (Entered: 09/01/2009)
23 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Williams waiver sent on 7/15/2009, answer due 9/14/2009. (NHol) (Entered: 09/01/2009)
24 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed as to Casey (Sergeant) Waiver Sent 7/15/2009, Answer Due 9/14/2009. (NHol) (Entered: 09/01/2009)
25 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Ship waiver sent on 7/15/2009, answer due 9/14/2009. (NHol) (Entered: 09/01/2009)
26 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Edward Mooreman waiver sent on 7/15/2009, answer due 9/14/2009. (NHol) (Entered: 09/01/2009)

Case: 2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH As of: 05/10/2013 11:19 AM EDT 7 of 12

09/01/2009 09/01/2009 09/09/2009 09/09/2009 09/09/2009 09/14/2009
09/14/2009
09/21/2009
10/02/2009 10/05/2009 10/13/2009 10/14/2009 10/16/2009
10/16/2009 10/19/2009 10/28/2009
10/30/2009 11/06/2009
11/18/2009 11/19/2009

27 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Jim Minzey waiver sent on 7/15/2009, answer due 9/14/2009. (NHol) (Entered: 09/01/2009)
28 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Alvers waiver sent on 7/15/2009, answer due 9/14/2009. (NHol) (Entered: 09/01/2009)
29 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Unexecuted as to Parker. (DeSa) Modified on 9/9/2009 (DeSa). (Entered: 09/09/2009)
30 Waiver of Service Returned Unexecuted as to Jerry Campbell. (DeSa) (Entered: 09/09/2009)
31 Waiver of Service Returned Unexecuted as to Callista Scotto. (DeSa) (Entered: 09/09/2009)
32 NOTICE of Appearance by Cynthia L. Reach on behalf of Williams, Riech, Powder, Vaughn, Jill Williams, Williams, Goldman, Ship, Casey(Sergeant), Alvers, Jim Minzey, Edward Mooreman, Carmelita Reyes, Washtenaw County, Washtenaw County Jail, Grondo, McGlauglan, Justice, Smalls, Fendt, Casey(Deputy). (Reach, Cynthia) (Entered: 09/14/2009)
33 ANSWER to Complaint with Affirmative Defenses by Williams, Riech, Powder, Vaughn, Jill Williams, Williams, Goldman, Ship, Casey(Sergeant), Alvers, Jim Minzey, Edward Mooreman, Carmelita Reyes, Washtenaw County, Washtenaw County Jail, Grondo, McGlauglan, Justice, Smalls, Fendt, Casey(Deputy). (Reach, Cynthia) (Entered: 09/14/2009)
34 ORDER of DISQUALIFICATION and REASSIGNING CASE from Magistrate Judge Virginia M Morgan to Magistrate Judge Michael Hluchaniuk. (SSch) (Entered: 09/22/2009)
35 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Scheduling Conference set for 11/2/2009 at 3:00 PM before District Judge Arthur J Tarnow (FMos) (Entered: 10/02/2009)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Scheduling Conference set for 11/3/2009 10:00 AM before District Judge Arthur J Tarnow (TTay) (Entered: 10/05/2009)
REQUEST for SUMMONS for Parker. (Santacroce, David) (Entered: 10/13/2009)
36 SUMMONS Issued for *Parker* (DeSa) (Entered: 10/14/2009)
37 ORDER amending caption as to unserved "Doe" defendant re SecureCare, Inc in the stead of "medical contractor". Signed by District Judge Arthur J Tarnow. (DeSa) (Entered: 10/16/2009)
REQUEST for SUMMONS for SecureCare, Incorporated. (Santacroce, David) (Entered: 10/16/2009)
38 SUMMONS Issued for *SecureCare, Incorporated* (DeSa) (Entered: 10/19/2009)
39 NOTICE of Appearance by Emily M. Ballenberger on behalf of SecureCare, Incorporated, Parker, Washtenaw County Jail. (Ballenberger, Emily) (Entered: 10/28/2009)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Scheduling Conference set for 11/19/2009 11:00 AM before District Judge Arthur J Tarnow (LSau) (Entered: 10/30/2009)
40 NOTICE of Appearance by Diane J. Andreou on behalf of SecureCare, Incorporated, Parker, Washtenaw County Jail. (Andreou, Diane) (Entered: 11/06/2009)
41 NOTICE of Appearance by Diane J. Andreou on behalf of SecureCare, Incorporated, Parker. (Andreou, Diane) (Entered: 11/18/2009)
42 CONSENT re 1 Complaint to amended complaint by Williams, Vaughn, Jill Williams, Williams, Casey(Sergeant), Jim Minzey, Edward Mooreman, Washtenaw County, Grondo, Fendt (Santacroce, David) Modified on 11/19/2009 (BSoc). [CONSENT WAS SIGNED BY DEFENSE ATTY BUT E−FILED BY PLAINTIFF'S ATTY] (Entered: 11/19/2009)

Case: 2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH As of: 05/10/2013 11:19 AM EDT 8 of 12

11/19/2009 11/19/2009
12/04/2009 12/09/2009 12/09/2009 12/09/2009
12/10/2009 12/10/2009 12/10/2009 12/15/2009 12/22/2009
12/22/2009 01/29/2010 02/04/2010 02/11/2010 02/26/2010 03/02/2010 03/24/2010 04/01/2010

43 AMENDED COMPLAINT with Jury Demand filed by Larry Lee against Larry Lee. (Santacroce, David) Modified on 11/19/2009 (BSoc). [DOCUMENT WAS LINKED TO PLAINTIFF AND NOT DEFENDANTS] (Entered: 11/19/2009)
Minute Entry − Scheduling Conference held on 11/19/2009,( , Dispositive Motion Cut−off set for 6/19/2010, Joint Pretrial Order due by 9/1/2010 Final Pretrial/Settlement Conference set for 9/8/2010 02:00 PM before District Judge Arthur J Tarnow) before District Judge Arthur J Tarnow. (TTay) (Entered: 11/20/2009)
44 SEALED [STRIKEN PER TEXT−ONLY ORDER] Stip protective order by Larry Lee. (Santacroce, David) Modified on 12/22/2009 (Grimes, K.). (Entered: 12/04/2009)
45 MOTION to Dismiss by SecureCare, Incorporated, Parker. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A − Plaintiff's Amended Complaint) (Andreou, Diane) (Entered: 12/09/2009)
46 ANSWER to 43 Amended Complaint by SecureCare, Incorporated, Parker. (Andreou, Diane) (Entered: 12/09/2009)
47 ANSWER to Amended Complaint with Affirmative Defenses by Williams, Vaughn, Jill Williams, Williams, Ship, Jim Minzey, Edward Mooreman, Washtenaw County, Grondo, McGlauglan, Fendt, Casey(Deputy). (Reach, Cynthia) (Entered: 12/09/2009)
48 WITNESS LIST by SecureCare, Incorporated, Parker (Andreou, Diane) (Entered: 12/10/2009)
49 Plaintiff's First WITNESS LIST by Larry Lee (Santacroce, David) (Entered: 12/10/2009)
50 WITNESS LIST by Williams, Vaughn, Jill Williams, Williams, Ship, Jim Minzey, Edward Mooreman, Washtenaw County, Grondo, McGlauglan, Fendt, Casey(Deputy) (Reach, Cynthia) (Entered: 12/10/2009)
52 SEALED ORDER Approving the Stipulated Protective Order. Signed by District Judge Arthur J Tarnow. (SSro) (Entered: 12/23/2009)
TEXT−ONLY ORDER STRIKING AND REMOVING IMAGE OF 44 Sealed Document for failure to comply with Rule 11 of the Electronic Filing Policies and Procedures − entered by District Judge Arthur J Tarnow. (Grimes, K.) (Entered: 12/22/2009)
51 STIPULATED ORDER re Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's 45 MOTION to Dismiss. ( Responses due by 1/29/2010). Signed by District Judge Arthur J Tarnow. (Ware, L.) (Entered: 12/22/2009)
53 RESPONSE to 45 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Larry Lee. (Santacroce, David) (Entered: 01/29/2010)
54 STIPULATION AND ORDER re 53 Response to Motion, 45 MOTION to Dismiss :( Defendants' Replies due by 12/12/2010) Signed by District Judge Arthur J Tarnow. (TTay) (Entered: 02/04/2010)
55 REPLY to Response re 45 MOTION to Dismiss filed by SecureCare, Incorporated, Parker. (Ballenberger, Emily) (Entered: 02/11/2010)
Set Hearings: Telephone Conference set for 3/3/2010 at 11:30 AM before District Judge Arthur J Tarnow (Ware, L.) (Entered: 02/26/2010)
Hearing Cancelled: Telephone Conference set for 3/3/2010 11:30 AM before District Judge Arthur J Tarnow (Ware, L.) (Entered: 03/02/2010)
56 NOTICE of hearing on 45 MOTION to Dismiss. Motion Hearing set for 4/9/2010 at 11:00 AM before District Judge Arthur J Tarnow. (Ware, L.) (Entered: 03/24/2010)
57 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by District Judge Arthur J Tarnow. (PPau) (Entered: 04/02/2010)

Case: 2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH As of: 05/10/2013 11:19 AM EDT 9 of 12

04/09/2010 04/12/2010 05/17/2010
07/25/2010 07/28/2010
07/28/2010 08/10/2010 08/18/2010 08/19/2010 08/19/2010 09/08/2010 09/09/2010 09/09/2010 09/30/2010 10/01/2010

Minute Entry − Motion Hearing held on 4/9/2010 re 45 MOTION to Dismiss filed by SecureCare, Incorporated, Parker before District Judge Arthur J Tarnow. Disposition: Order to follow.(Court Reporter Denise Mosby) (Ware, L.) (Entered: 04/12/2010)
58 ORDER denying without prejudice 45 Dr. Parker and Securecare, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Arthur J Tarnow. (PMil) (Entered: 04/13/2010)
59 STIPULATED ORDER Adjusting Case Schedule. Set Scheduling Order Deadlines,, ( Discovery Motion Cutoff 9/19/2010, Discovery Ends 10/19/2010, Joint Pre−Trial Order due 12/1/2010, Final Pretrial/Settlement Conference set for 12/8/2010 02:00 PM. ) Signed by District Judge Arthur J Tarnow. (Ware, L.) (Entered: 05/17/2010)
60 NOTICE of Change of Address/Contact Information by Cynthia L. Reach on behalf of Casey(Deputy), Fendt, Grondo, McGlauglan, Jim Minzey, Edward Mooreman, Ship, Vaughn, Washtenaw County, Williams, Williams, Jill Williams. (Reach, Cynthia) (Entered: 07/25/2010)
61 MOTION to Compel Discovery by Larry Lee. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support of Motion, # 2 Index of Exhibits Index of exhibits, # 3 Exhibit Ex A Pls Letter to Judge Tarnow, # 4 Exhibit Ex B Pls Letter to Judge Tarnon March 2nd, # 5 Exhibit Ex C Pls Letter to counsle for Washtenaw, # 6 Exhibit Ex D Pls Ltr to Judge Tarnow, # 7 Exhibit Ex E Wash. Supplement Answers to Pls discover, # 8 Exhibit Ex F Pls Ltr to counsel for Washtenaw, # 9 Exhibit Ex G Ltr memorializing June 18 Discover, # 10 Exhibit Ex H Ltr memorializing July 15 discover, # 11 Exhibit Ex I Pls First Interog. and Request Docs, # 12 Exhibit Ex J Wash. Answers to Pls Dec 11 Discovery, # 13 Exhibit Ex K Inmate Housing History Report) (Santacroce, David) (Entered: 07/28/2010)
Attorney Emily M. Ballenberger is discontinued from receiving Notices of Electronic Filing. Reason: No longer representing. Defendants − left defense firm representing Defendants (Ballenberger, Emily) (Entered: 07/28/2010)
62 RESPONSE to 61 MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by Parker, SecureCare, Incorporated. (Andreou, Diane) (Entered: 08/10/2010)
63 ORDER REFERRING MOTION to Magistrate Judge Michael Hluchaniuk: 61 MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by Larry Lee. Signed by District Judge Arthur J Tarnow. (Ware, L.) (Entered: 08/18/2010)
64 ORDER Rescinding 63 Order Referring Motion to Magistrate Judge. Signed by District Judge Arthur J Tarnow. (Ware, L.) (Entered: 08/19/2010)
65 NOTICE of hearing on 61 MOTION to Compel Discovery. Motion Hearing set for 9/10/2010 at 03:00 PM before District Judge Arthur J Tarnow. (Ware, L.) (Entered: 08/19/2010)
66 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Paul J. Dwaihy appearing on behalf of Parker, SecureCare, Incorporated (Dwaihy, Paul) (Entered: 09/08/2010)
67 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Regarding Defendants Parker and SecureCare, Inc. Signed by District Judge Arthur J Tarnow. (NHol) (Entered: 09/09/2010)
Minute Entry − Motion Hearing Not Held re 61 MOTION to Compel Discovery before District Judge Arthur J Tarnow. Motion Hearing set for 9/10/2010 03:00 PM before District Judge Arthur J Tarnow Disposition: Issue Resolved (Ware, L.) (Entered: 09/29/2010)
Motions terminated: 61 MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by Larry Lee. Signed by District Judge Arthur J Tarnow. (Ware, L.) (Entered: 09/30/2010)
68 STIPULATED ORDER ADJUSTING CASE SCHEDULE. Discovery Motion Cut−off 1/21/2011, Discovery ends 2/21/2011, Joint Pre−Trial Order due by 4/1/2011, Final Pre−Trial/Settlement Conference set for 4/8/2011 at 02:00 PM . Signed by District Judge Arthur J Tarnow. (Ware, L.) (Entered: 10/01/2010)

Case: 2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH As of: 05/10/2013 11:19 AM EDT 10 of 12

10/19/2010 10/27/2010 01/24/2011 02/25/2011
02/25/2011
03/08/2011 03/10/2011 03/10/2011 03/30/2011 04/01/2011

69 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Ian J. Reach appearing on behalf of Casey(Sergeant), Casey(Deputy), Fendt, Grondo, McGlauglan, Jim Minzey, Edward Mooreman, Ship, Vaughn, Washtenaw County, Williams, Williams, Jill Williams (Reach, Ian) (Entered: 10/19/2010)
70 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Regarding Sexual Orientation of Witnesses. Signed by District Judge Arthur J Tarnow. (CGre) (Entered: 10/27/2010)
71 STIPULATED ORDER Adjusting Case Schedule; ( Discovery Motion Cut−off set for 5/21/2011, Discovery due by 6/30/2011, Final Pretrial Order due by 9/1/11, Final Pretrial Conference set for 9/8/2011 at 2:00 PM before District Judge Arthur J Tarnow) − Signed by District Judge Arthur J Tarnow. (FMos) (Entered: 01/24/2011)
72 SEALED MOTION Summary Judgment by Parker, SecureCare, Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A − First Amended Complaint, # 3 Exhibit B − Larry Lee Deposition, # 4 Exhibit C − Medical Department Memoranda, # 5 Exhibit D − Progress Notes, # 6 Exhibit E − Dr. Parker Deposition, # 7 Exhibit F − Dr. Wicker Consult, # 8 Exhibit G − Dr. Trobe Consult, # 9 Exhibit H − Michigan Department of Corrections Prisoner Accident Report, # 10 Exhibit I − Problem List) (Dwaihy, Paul) (Entered: 02/25/2011)
73 SEALED EXHIBIT re 72 SEALED MOTION Summary Judgment by Parker, SecureCare, Incorporated. by Parker, SecureCare, Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit J − Treatment Record, # 2 Exhibit K − Medication Chart, # 3 Exhibit L − Doctor Order Record, # 4 Exhibit M − Carmelita Samue Deposition, # 5 Exhibit N − Inmate communication Kites, # 6 Exhibit O − Callista Scotto Progress Notes, # 7 Exhibit P − September 20, 2006 Mental Health Recommendation for CSTS Referral, # 8 Exhibit Q − February 5, 2007 Mental Health Recommendation for CSTS Referral, # 9 Exhibit R − Dr. Nagendank Records, # 10 Exhibit S − Medical Kites) (Dwaihy, Paul) (Entered: 02/25/2011)
74 Ex Parte MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Parker, SecureCare, Incorporated. (Dwaihy, Paul) (Entered: 03/08/2011)
75 STIPULATED ORDER Adjusting Plaintiff's Time to Respond to Defendants SecureCare and Paker's 72 SEALED MOTION Summary Judgment −( Responses due by 4/1/2011) − Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (FMos) (Entered: 03/10/2011)
76 ORDER Granting Ex Parte Daryl Parker and SecureCare, Inc.'s Ex Parte Motion for Leave 74 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages −. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (FMos) (Entered: 03/10/2011)
77 Ex Parte MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Larry Lee. (Santacroce, David) (Entered: 03/30/2011)
78 SEALED RESPONSE re 72 Sealed Motion,, by Larry Lee. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits Index of exhibits, # 2 Exhibit Ex A Dep of Lee, # 3 Exhibit Ex B Diary of Lee, # 4 Exhibit Ex C Aff of Boyer, # 5 Exhibit Ex D Aff Craig, # 6 Exhibit Ex E Aff Buckner, # 7 Exhibit Ex F Aff Lee, # 8 Exhibit Ex G WCJ Incident Report, # 9 Exhibit Ex H Treatment Record of Lee, # 10 Exhibit Ex I Dr. Parker Progress Notes of Lee, # 11 Exhibit Ex J. Procedure for Inmate Kites, # 12 Exhibit Ex K Written Reports of Sexual Assault, # 13 Exhibit Ex L Lee's Medical Kits, # 14 Document Continuation Ex L Lee's Medical Kits continuation, # 15 Exhibit Ex M. Dep. of Dr. Parker, # 16 Exhibit Ex N. Referall of Lee to Psychiatrist, # 17 Exhibit Ex O PTSD DIagnosis of Lee, # 18 Exhibit Ex P Jail Overcrowding Presentation, # 19 Exhibit Ex Q. Wcj SCI Contract, # 20 Exhibit Ex R. Email re Dr. Parker Supervisor, # 21 Exhibit Ex S Medical Grievance Procedure Given to WCJ Inmates, # 22 Exhibit Ex T Lee's Problem List, # 23 Exhibit Ex U. Aff Santacroce &Motion to Compel Production of SCI Training Docs, # 24 Exhibit Ex V WCJ Health Care Policy and Procedure Manual, # 25 Exhibit Ex W Dr. Trobe MD Report, # 26 Exhibit Ex X SCI Medical Director Position Description, # 27 Exhibit Ex Y Second Addendum to Medical Director Agreement, # 28 Exhibit Ex Z SCI Independent Contractor Agreement, # 29 Document Continuation Ex L Lee's Medical Kits continuation) (Santacroce, David) (Entered: 04/01/2011)

Case: 2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH As of: 05/10/2013 11:19 AM EDT 11 of 12

04/07/2011 04/08/2011 04/15/2011 05/02/2011
05/04/2011 07/26/2011
08/24/2011 11/07/2011 01/19/2012 01/19/2012
01/19/2012 01/19/2012 01/23/2012 01/23/2012 01/23/2012
02/06/2012 02/07/2012 05/08/2012

79 ORDER signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow granting Plaintiff's 77 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. (MWil) (Entered: 04/07/2011)
80 SEALED REPLY to Response re 72 Sealed Motion,, by Parker, SecureCare, Incorporated. (Dwaihy, Paul) (Entered: 04/08/2011)
81 NOTICE of hearing on 72 SEALED MOTION Summary Judgment by Parker, SecureCare, Incorporated.. Motion Hearing set for 5/2/2011 02:00 PM before District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (MWil) (Entered: 04/17/2011)
Minute Entry − Motion Hearing held on 5/2/2011 re 72 SEALED MOTION Summary Judgment by Parker, SecureCare, Incorporated. filed by SecureCare, Incorporated, Parker before District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. DISPOSITION: MOTION DENIED. (Court Reporter Denise Mosby) (Ware, L.) (Entered: 05/19/2011)
82 ORDER signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow DENYING 72 Sealed Motion. (MWil) (Entered: 05/04/2011)
83 STIPULATION AND ORDER Adjusting Case Schedule. ( Discovery Motion Cut−Off 9/15/2011, Discovery due by 10/15/2011, Dispositive Motion Cut−off set for 12/1/2011, Joint Pretrial Order due 2/28/2012, Final Pretrial Conference set for 3/6/2012 at 2:00 PM before District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow) Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (SJa) (Entered: 07/26/2011)
84 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Permitting Defense Counsel to Conduct ex Parte Meetings with Plaintiffs Treating Physicians and Health Care Providers Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (SJa) (Entered: 08/24/2011)
85 STIPULATED ORDER For Release of Presentence Report. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (MLan) (Entered: 11/07/2011)
86 CONSENT to Plaintiff's Filing of Second Amended Complaint by Larry Lee (Santacroce, David) (Entered: 01/19/2012)
87 AMENDED COMPLAINT with Jury Demand filed by Larry Lee against John Does, Fendt, Grondo, Jane Does, McGlauglan, Jim Minzey, Edward Mooreman, Parker, SecureCare, Incorporated, Vaughn, Washtenaw County, Jill Williams, Filsinger Kirk, Kurt Schiappacasse, Richard Williams, SR. NEW PARTIES ADDED. (Santacroce, David) (Entered: 01/19/2012)
REQUEST for SUMMONS for Filsinger Kirk. (Santacroce, David) (Entered: 01/19/2012)
88 SUMMONS Issued for *Filsinger Kirk* (DTyl) (Entered: 01/19/2012)
89 ANSWER to Amended Complaint with Affirmative Defenses , Reliance on Jury Demand and Proof of Service by Parker, SecureCare, Incorporated. (Dwaihy, Paul) (Entered: 01/23/2012)
90 STATEMENT of DISCLOSURE of CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS and FINANCIAL INTEREST by SecureCare, Incorporated (Dwaihy, Paul) (Entered: 01/23/2012)
91 STIPULATION AND ORDER Adjusting Scheduling: (Discovery Motion Cutoff 3/2/2012, Dispositive Motion Cut−off set for 6/15/2012, Joint Final Pretrial Order due 9/14/2012, Final Pretrial Conference set for 9/19/2012 02:00 PM before District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow). Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (MLan) (Entered: 01/23/2012)
92 CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. Filsinger Kirk served on 2/2/2012, answer due 2/23/2012. (Santacroce, David) (Entered: 02/06/2012)
93 STIPULATION RE: Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint and Defendant's Dismissed without Prejudice by Larry Lee (Santacroce, David) (Entered: 02/07/2012)
94 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Regarding Production of Psychological Testing Materials. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (MLan) (Entered: 05/08/2012)

Case: 2:09-cv-12471-AJT-MJH As of: 05/10/2013 11:19 AM EDT 12 of 12

05/10/2012 08/20/2012
08/29/2012 08/29/2012 11/28/2012

95 ANSWER to Amended Complaint with Affirmative Defenses by Fendt, Grondo, Filsinger Kirk, McGlauglan, Jim Minzey, Edward Mooreman, Kurt Schiappacasse, Vaughn, Washtenaw County, Jill Williams, Richard Williams, SR. (Reach, Ian) (Entered: 05/10/2012)
96 STIPULATION AND ORDER Adjusting Case Schedule: Expert Discovery due by 9/30/2012, Dispositive Motion Cut−off set for 10/30/2012, Final Pretrial Conference set for 1/30/2013 02:00 PM before District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. See Order for other dates. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (MLan) (Entered: 08/20/2012)
97 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Heather A. Glazer appearing on behalf of All Plaintiffs as Co−Counsel (Glazer, Heather) (Entered: 08/29/2012)
98 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Robert M. Giroux, Jr appearing on behalf of All Plaintiffs as Co−Counsel (Giroux, Robert) (Entered: 08/29/2012)
99 STIPULATED ORDER DISMISSING CASE Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (MLan) (Entered: 11/28/2012)