UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

NATHANIEL HINES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CORRECTIONS MENTAL HEALTH

PROGRAM,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 14-13619

Thomas L. Ludington

United States District Judge

Michael Hluchaniuk

United States Magistrate Judge

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (Dkt. 15) and 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER/PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Dkt. 19)

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 17, 2014, plaintiff Nathaniel Hines, an inmate currently

incarcerated by the Michigan Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) at the

Macomb Correctional Facility (“MRF”) in New Haven, Michigan, brought this

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming a violation of his rights under the United

States Constitution. (Dkt. 1). On November 13, 2014, District Judge Thomas L.

Ludington referred this case to the undersigned for all pretrial purposes. (Dkt. 9).

On January 8, 2015, MDOC defendant Corrections Mental Health Program

1

1:14-cv-13619-TLL-SDD Doc # 26 Filed 03/30/15 Pg 1 of 12 Pg ID 455
(“CMHP”) filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). (Dkt. 15). 1

On January 20, 2015, plaintiff filed a response to defendant’s motion to dismiss

(entitled Motion for Objection), and on February 5, 2015, a “reply” to the same

motion. (Dkts. 20, 21). Defendant’s motion to dismiss is now ready for report and

recommendation.

On January 8, 2015, plaintiff filed a “motion for order” wherein he sought

preliminary injunctive relief from medical treatment in the form of involuntary

injections of medication from defendant. (Dkt. 19). Pursuant to this Court’s

order, defendant filed a response to this motion on March 5, 2015. (Dkt. 25). 

Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief is now ready for report and

recommendation. 

For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that

defendant’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 15) be GRANTED, plaintiff’s complaint

against defendant be DISMISSED and plaintiff be GRANTED leave to amend

the complaint to name proper defendants. The undersigned further

RECOMMENDS that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief (Dkt.

As noted by defendant in its brief in support of its motion to dismiss, the sole defendant 1

named by plaintiff, “Corrections Mental Health Program,” is not a formally recognized entity

inside or outside the MDOC organization. Nevertheless, because plaintiff’s claims address the

mental health treatment he is receiving in the MDOC-operated MRF, the undersigned construes

plaintiff’s complaint as naming MDOC as the sole defendant. Accordingly, defendant shall

herein refer to MDOC.

2

1:14-cv-13619-TLL-SDD Doc # 26 Filed 03/30/15 Pg 2 of 12 Pg ID 456
19) be DENIED without prejudice.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming a violation of

his rights under the United States Constitution. (Dkt. 1). Plaintiff claims that the

defendant has involuntarily injected in him with anti-psychotic medication in

violation of the Eighth Amendment, and he seeks declaratory and injunctive relief,

as well as compensatory and punitive damages. (Id.). 

III. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

A. Standard of Review

To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a plaintiff must first

comply with Rule 8(a)(2), which requires “‘a short and plain statement of the

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant

fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson,

355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). A plaintiff is also obliged “to provide the grounds of his

entitlement to relief,” which “requires more than labels and conclusions, and a

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Association

of Cleveland Fire Fighters v. City of Cleveland, 502 F.3d 545, 548 (6th Cir. 2007)

(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations and internal quotation marks

3

1:14-cv-13619-TLL-SDD Doc # 26 Filed 03/30/15 Pg 3 of 12 Pg ID 457
omitted)). And, while a complaint need not contain “detailed” factual allegations,

its “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the

speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are

true.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citation and internal quotation

marks omitted)); see also League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Bredesen, 500

F.3d 523, 527 (6th Cir. 2007) (emphasis in original) (the factual allegations in a 

complaint need not be detailed but they “must do more than create speculation or

suspicion of a legally cognizable cause of action; they must show entitlement to

relief.”). 

The Sixth Circuit recognized that in Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89

(2007), “a case decided just two weeks after Twombly, the Supreme Court clarified

Twombly by holding that a prisoner bringing a § 1983 claim against his captor is

not required to state [s]pecific facts in their complaint; and Twombly itself

suggests that its holding may be limited to cases likely to produce sprawling,

costly, and hugely time-consuming litigation.” U.S. v. Ford Motor Co., 532 F.3d

496 (6th Cir. 2008) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The Sixth

Circuit applied a more stringent pleading standard in U.S. v. Ford because a fraud

claim was involved, which requires the application of the heightened pleading

standard set forth in Rule 9(b), rather than the more liberal pleading standard

4

1:14-cv-13619-TLL-SDD Doc # 26 Filed 03/30/15 Pg 4 of 12 Pg ID 458
found in Rule 8(a)(2). A complaint filed by a pro se plaintiff must be “liberally

construed” and “held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by

lawyers.” Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94 (citation omitted). Thus, when applying

Twombly, except as to a claim of fraud, the Court must still read plaintiff’s pro se

complaint indulgently, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), and accept

plaintiff’s allegations as true, unless they are clearly irrational or wholly

incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992); Erickson, 551 U.S. at

93-94 (The Court of Appeals improperly departed “from the liberal pleading

standards set forth by Rule 8(a)(2)” and failed to liberally construe” the pro se

complaint at issue.). 

Moreover, even if the pro se complaint is defective, if it is at all possible

that the pro se party can correct the defect in the pleading or state a claim for

relief, the court should dismiss with leave to amend. Brown v. Matauszak, 415

Fed. App’x 608, 614 (6 Cir. 2011)(citing 6 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller th

& Mary Kay Kane, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1483 (3d ed.

2010)). Leave to amend to change or add a proper party-defendant may be

granted sua sponte to pro se plaintiffs who have failed to request such relief. See

Berndt v. Tennessee, 796 F.2d 879, 883 (6 Cir. 1986). th

B. Plaintiff’s Claims Against MDOC are Barred by the Eleventh Amendment

5

1:14-cv-13619-TLL-SDD Doc # 26 Filed 03/30/15 Pg 5 of 12 Pg ID 459
Plaintiff has asserted a § 1983 claim against CMHP, an unrecognized

division of the MDOC. The Eleventh Amendment bars suit in federal court

against a state and its departments or agencies unless the state has waived its

sovereign immunity or unequivocally consented to be sued. See Pennhurst State

Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984). This jurisdictional bar

applies to claims for injunctive relief, as well those for money damages. See id at

100-101. Michigan has not consented to civil rights suits in federal court. See

Johnson v. Dellatifia, 357 F.3d 539, 545 (6th Cir. 2004). Nor does the language

of §1983 permit suits against a State or its agencies. See Will v. Michigan Dep’t of

State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989)(neither a State nor its officials acting in their

official capacities are “persons” under §1983). Given these facts, plaintiff’s §1983

claims against the MDOC (or its unrecognized alter-ego, CMHP) should be

dismissed. 

The Eleventh Amendment, however, does not bar suits against state officials

in their individual capacities when they are alleged to have violated federal law. 

Berndt, 796 F.2d at 882. Moreover, where state defendants must be dismissed on

Eleventh Amendment grounds, but the allegations in the complaint allow for the

possibility of individual defendants amenable to suit in federal court, plaintiffs

should be allowed a reasonable opportunity to amend the complaint and add other

6

1:14-cv-13619-TLL-SDD Doc # 26 Filed 03/30/15 Pg 6 of 12 Pg ID 460
defendants to the action. Id.

In Berndt, plaintiff’s complaint made repeated references to the “staff” or

“authorities” of the named state-agency-defendant in the allegations of denial and

violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Id. Under those circumstances, the

Sixth Circuit ruled 

it would be a miscarriage of justice to preclude [a] pro se plaintiff from

seeking redress for his alleged injuries on a procedural defect, particularly

when the complaint, in substance, clearly indicates that the staff and

authorities of [the state agency] are the real parties-defendants. 

Id. 

Similarly, plaintiff here references “psychiatrists” throughout the complaint.

(Dkt. 1). Additionally, plaintiff references “men,” “officers,” “treatment team,”

“doctors,” “psychiatrists,” and “social workers” in his response to defendant’s

motion to dismiss. (Dkt. 20). He specifically names a Dr. Garlapati as the

psychiatrist responsible for his involuntary injections. (Dkt. 20, PgID 403). 

Accordingly, the undersigned believes that plaintiff’s pleadings have sufficiently

suggested the existence of proper parties-defendants to justify granting him leave

to amend his complaint to so name those individual parties. See Berndt, 796 F.2d

at 882.

The Court takes this opportunity to caution plaintiff that any future amended

7

1:14-cv-13619-TLL-SDD Doc # 26 Filed 03/30/15 Pg 7 of 12 Pg ID 461
complaint must comply with certain Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

1. The amended complaint must comply with Local Rule 15.1, which

requires that “[a]ny amendment to a pleading, whether filed as a matter of course

or upon a motion to amend, must ... reproduce the entire pleading as amended, and

may not incorporate any prior pleading by reference.”

2. The amended complaint must also comply with Rule 8(a)(2), which

requires “‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is

and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

544 (2007), quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957); see also League of

United Latin Am. Citizens v. Bredesen, 500 F.3d 523, 527 (6th Cir. 2007)

(emphasis in original) (The factual allegations in a complaint need not be detailed

but they “must do more than create speculation or suspicion of a legally

cognizable cause of action; they must show entitlement to relief.”). A plaintiff

properly pleads a claim for relief by “briefly describing the events” supporting the

claim. Peabody v. Griggs, 2009 WL 3200686, *3 (D. R.I. 2009), quoting, Sanjuan

v. American Bd. of Psychiatry & Neurology, Inc., 40 F.3d 247, 251 (7th Cir.

1994). The statement of the claim should be short because “unnecessary length

places an unjustified burden on the court and on the party who must respond to it.” 

8

1:14-cv-13619-TLL-SDD Doc # 26 Filed 03/30/15 Pg 8 of 12 Pg ID 462
Id., quoting, Laurence v. Wall, 2007 WL 1875794, *1 (D. R.I. 2007); see also

Wright & Miller § 1281 at 709 (“[u]nnecessary prolixity in a pleading places an

unjustified burden on the district judge and the party who must respond to it

because they are forced to ferret out the relevant material from a mass of

verbiage”). “The statement should be plain because the principal function of

pleadings under the Federal Rules is to give the adverse party fair notice of the

claim asserted to enable him to answer and prepare for trial.” Id., quoting,

Laurence, 2007 WL 1875794 at *1. 

3. Rule 10(b) mandates that claims must be made in numbered

paragraphs; the contents of each are to be limited to a statement of a single set of

circumstances; and, claims founded on separate transactions or occurrences are to

be stated in separate counts if a separation facilitates a clear presentation. 

4. Finally, plaintiff must be mindful that Rule 11 applies to any

amended complaint. Failure to heed the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure could

result in sanctions, including dismissal of his complaint. In filing his amended

complaint, plaintiff will be representing to the Court that, to the best of his

knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the

circumstances:

(1) [the proposed amended complaint] is not being

9

1:14-cv-13619-TLL-SDD Doc # 26 Filed 03/30/15 Pg 9 of 12 Pg ID 463
presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass,

cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase

the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims ... and other legal contentions are

warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument

for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for

establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if

specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary

support after a reasonable opportunity for further

investigation or discovery;

See e.g. Jackson v. Hanson, 1991 WL 3056, *1 (7th Cir. 1991) (Parties

“proceeding IFP are not immune from Rule 11.”).

5. The amended complaint must be filed within three weeks of the Court’s

ruling on this Report and Recommendation.

C. Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief

Because the undersigned is recommending plaintiff’s complaint against the

sole named defendant be dismissed, he also recommends that plaintiff’s motion for

preliminary injunctive relief be denied without prejudice. Plaintiff may seek

preliminary injunctive relief after he files a viable amended complaint.

IV. RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that

defendant’s motion to dismiss should be GRANTED, plaintiff’s complaint should

10

1:14-cv-13619-TLL-SDD Doc # 26 Filed 03/30/15 Pg 10 of 12 Pg ID 464
be DISMISSED, and, plaintiff be GRANTED leave to amend his complaint

within three weeks of the Court’s ruling on this Report and Recommendation. The

undersigned further RECOMMENDS that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary

injunctive relief (Dkt. 19) be DENIED without prejudice.

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

Recommendation, but are required to file any objections within 14 days of service,

as provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and Local Rule

72.1(d). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right

of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Sec’y of Health and

Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1981). Filing objections that 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. Sec’y of Health

and Human Servs., 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 Local Rule

72.1(d)(2), any objections must be served on this Magistrate Judge.

Any objections must be labeled as “Objection No. 1,” “Objection No. 2,”

etc. Any objection must recite precisely the provision of this Report and

Recommendation to which it pertains. Not later than 14 days after service of an

objection, the opposing party may file a concise response proportionate to the

11

1:14-cv-13619-TLL-SDD Doc # 26 Filed 03/30/15 Pg 11 of 12 Pg ID 465
objections in length and complexity. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2), Local Rule 72.1(d). 

The response must specifically address each issue raised in the objections, in the

same order, and labeled as “Response to Objection No. 1,” “Response to Objection

No. 2,” etc. If the Court determines that any objections are without merit, it may

rule without awaiting the response.

Date: March 30, 2015 s/Michael Hluchaniuk

Michael Hluchaniuk

United States Magistrate Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on March 30, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing paper

with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system, which will send electronic

notification to all counsel of record, and I certify that I have mailed by United

States Postal Service the foregoing pleading to the following non-ECF

participant(s), at the following address(es): Nathaniel Hines #452677, Macomb

Correctional Facility, 34625 26 Mile Road, New Haven, MI 48048.

s/Tammy Hallwood

Case Manager

(810) 341-7887

tammy_hallwood@mied.uscourts.gov

12

1:14-cv-13619-TLL-SDD Doc # 26 Filed 03/30/15 Pg 12 of 12 Pg ID 466