UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

JAMES BLACK, 

 Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 14-13581 

 Honorable Mark A. Goldsmith 

v. Magistrate Judge David R. Grand 

 

MICHAEL BOUCHARD and 

CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, 

 

 Defendants. 

__________________________________/ 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S 

PETITION FOR EMERGENCY INTERVENTION [13] 

On September 16, 2014, Plaintiff James Black, who is an inmate at the Oakland County 

Jail, filed his complaint in this case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his 

Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Doc. #1). More specifically, Black alleges in his 

complaint that during his incarceration he has been forced to sleep on a concrete floor, suffered 

shoulder and leg pain as a result, and was not provided with adequate medical care for those 

infirmities. He also alleges that his due process rights were violated when he was denied the 

opportunity to challenge the inclusion of “negative events” (i.e., violations) in his file. On 

October 8, 2014, this case was referred to the undersigned for all pretrial purposes. (Doc. #7). 

Black’s Petition for Emergency Intervention 

On October 28, 2014, Black mailed his instant “Petition for Emergency Intervention.” 

(Doc. #13). In his Petition, Black alleges that, on October 26 and 27, 2014, he was denied 

adequate medical care for pain and bleeding he was experiencing in his right ear. (Doc. #13 at 1-

2). Black further alleges that Defendant Corrective Care Solutions’ conduct, in refusing him 

“proper and adequate medical treatment” on these two dates, was in retaliation for his filing this 

2:14-cv-13581-MAG-DRG Doc # 14 Filed 11/07/14 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 41
2 

civil action. (Id. at 2).1

 Black requests “whatever relief this court can give [him] in getting some 

medical treatment for [his] ear.” (Id. at 3). For the reasons discussed below, Black’s Petition 

should be denied.2 

Analysis 

First, to the extent Black asks this Court to order any particular form of medical care, that 

request is not proper and should be denied. As the United States Supreme Court has recognized: 

courts are ill equipped to deal with the increasingly urgent problems of 

prison administration and reform. As the Martinez Court acknowledged, 

“the problems of prisons in America are complex and intractable, and, 

more to the point, they are not readily susceptible of resolution by decree.” 

Running a prison is an inordinately difficult undertaking that requires 

expertise, planning, and the commitment of resources, all of which are 

peculiarly within the province of the legislative and executive branches of 

government. Prison administration is, moreover, a task that has been 

committed to the responsibility of those branches, and separation of 

powers concerns counsel a policy of judicial restraint. Where a state penal 

system is involved, federal courts have, as we indicated in Martinez, 

additional reason to accord deference to the appropriate prison authorities. 

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84-85 (1987) (internal citations omitted). See also Bell v. Wolfish, 

441 U.S. 520, 562 (1979) (courts must give great deference to jail administrators as to prison 

operations to avoid becoming “enmeshed in the minutiae of prison operations.”); Kendrick v. 

Bland, 740 F.2d 432, 438 & n.3 (6th Cir. 1984). Black, who admits he was seen by a nurse, has 

failed to show that the Court should deviate from these principles here. 

Second, Black cannot use the existence of his present civil action as a vehicle to 

immediately challenge any perceived wrong he suffers. Rather, while Black, like any inmate, is 

 

1

 However, Black admits that on the evening of October 27, 2014, he “was sent to medical were 

[sic] a nurse looked into [his] ear and stated [he] was fine.” (Id. at 1). Black surmises that this 

treatment was retaliatory in nature, but he provides no evidence to support such accusation. 

Chance v. Tennessee, 47 Fed. App’x. 762, 763 (6th Cir. 2002). 

2

 Because Black requests injunctive relief, the Court proceeds by way of this Report and 

Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). 

2:14-cv-13581-MAG-DRG Doc # 14 Filed 11/07/14 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 42
3 

entitled to constitutional treatment while in custody and may not be unlawfully retaliated against, 

he must follow the proper procedures to challenge his treatment and the conditions of his 

confinement. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), before a prisoner may bring a 

claim “under [§1983] or any other Federal law” challenging his conditions of confinement, he 

must have properly exhausted all available administrative remedies. 42 U.S.C. §1997e(a); 

Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85 (2006). In determining whether a plaintiff has properly 

exhausted his claim, the only relevant rules “are defined not by the PLRA, but by the prison 

grievance process itself.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 200 (2007). In this case, it is clear that 

the Oakland County Jail does, in fact, have a grievance process, as Black alleged in his 

complaint that he previously filed an inmate grievance against CCS for failure to adequately treat 

his chronic leg and shoulder pain. (Doc. #1 at 9). See also Spaulding v. Oakland County Jail 

Medical Staff, 2007 WL 2336216, at *2 (Aug. 15, 2007); Spencer v. Bouchard, 449 F.3d 721, 

726 (6th Cir. 2006). 

With respect to the allegations contained in Black’s Petition for Emergency Intervention, 

it is abundantly clear that he has not exhausted his administrative remedies. Black alleges that he 

was denied adequate medical treatment for his right ear pain and bleeding on October 26 and 27, 

2014. He mailed his instant Petition to the Court on October 28, 2014. Thus, even if Black had 

filed a grievance challenging CCS’ conduct – which there is no indication he did – it simply is 

not possible that he pursued such a grievance through the grievance process in the span of fortyeight hours. Again, if Black wishes to challenge the matters at the heart of his instant petition, he 

must do so through the appropriate grievance procedures. 

Finally, Black’s Petition cannot properly be considered a motion to add a supplemental 

claim. “A supplemental pleading cannot be used to introduce a separate, distinct and new cause 

2:14-cv-13581-MAG-DRG Doc # 14 Filed 11/07/14 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 43
4 

of action.” Mullen v. Surtshin, 590 F. Supp. 2d 1233, 1238 (N.D. Ca. 2008). Instead, the plaintiff 

must allege facts showing “some relationship or linkage between the claims asserted in the 

original complaint and the supplemental claims.” Imelmann v. Michigan Dep’t of Corr., 2012 

WL 2917514, at *1 (E.D. Mich. July 17, 2012). Black clearly has fails to meet that standard 

here. 

Conclusion 

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Black’s Petition for 

Emergency Intervention (Doc. #13) be DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 7, 2014 s/David R. Grand 

Ann Arbor, Michigan DAVID R. GRAND 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS 

The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and 

Recommendation, but are required to act within fourteen (14) days of service of a copy hereof as 

provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file specific 

objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 

(1985); Howard v. Secretary of HHS, 932 F.2d 505, 508 (6th Cir.1991); United States v. Walters, 

638 F.2d 947, 949–50 (6th Cir.1981). The filing of objections which raise some issues, but fail 

to raise others with specificity, will not preserve all the objections a party might have to this 

Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Secretary of HHS, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir.1991); 

Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir.1987). Pursuant to 

E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of any objections is to be served upon this magistrate judge. A 

party may respond to another party’s objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. 

2:14-cv-13581-MAG-DRG Doc # 14 Filed 11/07/14 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 44
5 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). Any such response should be concise, and 

should address specifically, and in the same order raised, each issue presented in the objections. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record 

and any unrepresented parties via the Court=s ECF System to their respective email or First Class 

U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on November 7, 2014. 

s/Eddrey O. Butts 

EDDREY O. BUTTS 

Case Manager 

2:14-cv-13581-MAG-DRG Doc # 14 Filed 11/07/14 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 45