1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

CASSANDRA JEAN BRUCE, 

 Plaintiff, 

 

v 

 

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, a public entity, 

DANIEL H. HEYNS, in his official 

capacity as Director of the Michigan 

Department of Corrections, 

MILLICENT WARREN, in her official 

capacity as former Warden of the Huron 

Valley Correctional Facility, 

JOANN KOCISKY, MS. DICK, MR. BURNETT, 

RUO COOK, ARUS PERRY, 

UNNAMED EMPLOYEES OF HURON VALLEY 

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, and 

UNNAMED EMPLOYEES OF HURON VALLEY 

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY’S HEALTHCARE 

AND OPTOMETRY DEPARTMENTS, each 

and all in their official and individual capacities, 

 Defendants. 

_____________________________________________________________________/ 

Teresa J. Gorman (P61001) 

Teresa J. Gorman PLLC 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

363 West Big Beaver Road, Suite 215 

Troy, MI 48083 

Tel: (248) 457-6005 

Fax: (248) 689-3268 

terigorman@aol.com

_____________________________________________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT

 Plaintiff, CASSANDRA JEAN BRUCE, by and through her attorneys, Teresa J. 

Gorman PLLC, for Her Complaint, states as follows: 

Case 2:15-cv-11194-GAD-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 03/30/15 PageID.1 Page 1 of 12
2 

JURISDICTION AND PARTIES

1. This is an action by Plaintiff to enforce her civil rights protected by the 

Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States as well as 

the Americans With Disabilities Act, as amended, 42 USC §12101, et seq. 

2. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 42 U.S.C. §1983, 

42 U.S.C. §1988, and 42 USC §12101, et seq. 

3. Plaintiff is a resident of the City of Flint, Genesee County, Michigan. 

4. During the relevant time, Plaintiff was imprisoned in the Huron Valley 

Correctional Facility under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Department of Corrections. 

5. Plaintiff was released from prison on April 1, 2014 and this action is 

brought pursuant to MCLA §600.5851(1). 

6. Defendant Michigan Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) was and is a 

“state or local government” within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as 

amended, and as such operated the Huron Valley Correctional Facility (“Huron Valley”) 

in the City of Ypsilanti, County of Washtenaw, Michigan where it was and is responsible 

for the care and custody of prisoners incarcerated in the State of Michigan. 

7. Defendant Daniel H. Heyns was and is the Director of Defendant Michigan 

Department of Corrections. His duties and responsibilities include a responsibility for 

developing and implementing policies and procedures for the operation and 

management of the Michigan Department of Civil Rights and its employees. He is 

responsible for the care, custody and protection of prisoners under the jurisdiction of the 

Michigan Department of Corrections. Defendant Daniel H. Heyns was acting under the 

color of law of the State of Michigan and is sued in his official and individual capacity. 

Case 2:15-cv-11194-GAD-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 03/30/15 PageID.2 Page 2 of 12
3 

8. Defendant Millicent Warren was the Warden of Huron Valley during the 

relevant time period. Her responsibilities and duties included the training, assignment, 

supervision, discipline and investigation of correctional officers and MDOC employees 

at Huron Valley. She was responsible for the unlawful treatment to which Plaintiff was 

subjected. Defendant was acting under the color of law of the State of Michigan and is 

sued in her official and individual capacity. 

9. Upon information and belief, Defendant JoAnn Kocisky was Defendant 

MDOC’s off-site medical coordinator at Huron Valley. Defendant was acting under the 

color of law of the State of Michigan and is sued in her official and individual capacity. 

10. Upon information and belief, Defendant Ms. Dick was Defendant MDOC’s 

principal of education at Huron Valley. Defendant was acting under the color of law of 

the State of Michigan and is sued in her official and individual capacity. 

11. Upon information and belief, Defendant Mr. Burnett was Defendant 

MDOC’s building trades instructor at Huron Valley. Defendant was acting under the 

color of law of the State of Michigan and is sued in his official and individual capacity. 

12. Upon information and belief, Defendant RUO Cook was Defendant 

MDOC’s Resident Unit Officer at Huron Valley. Defendant was acting under the color of 

law of the State of Michigan and is sued in her official and individual capacity. 

13. Upon information and belief, Defendant ARUS Perry was Defendant 

MDOC’s Assistant Resident Unit Supervisor at Huron Valley. Defendant was acting 

under the color of law of the State of Michigan and is sued in her official and individual 

capacity. 

Case 2:15-cv-11194-GAD-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 03/30/15 PageID.3 Page 3 of 12
4 

14. Unnamed Defendants are MDOC employees employed at Huron Valley 

who were acting under color of law of the State of Michigan and are sued in their official 

and individual capacities. 

15. Unnamed Defendants are MDOC employees employed at Huron Valley’s 

Healthcare and Optometric Departments who were acting under color of law of the 

State of Michigan and are sued in their official and individual capacities. 

 16. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 which authorizes 

Federal courts to decide cases concerning federal questions, and 28 U.S.C. § 

1343(a)(3) and (4) which authorizes Federal courts to hear civil rights cases. This Court 

has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants named herein as public officials of the 

State of Michigan sued in their official and individual capacities for violations of Plaintiffs’ 

statutory and constitutional rights. The amount in controversy exceeds Seventy-Five 

Thousand ($75,000.00) Dollars. 

 17. Venue is proper in this court as Defendants conduct their business in the 

County of Washtenaw in the Eastern District of Michigan and the named Plaintiff was 

incarcerated in the Eastern District of Michigan during the relevant time periods 

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

18. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-17 

19. In 2004, Plaintiff was sentenced to serve time in prison. From the time of 

her sentencing until her parole on April 1, 2014, Plaintiff was placed under the custody 

and control of the Michigan Department of Corrections. 

20. Plaintiff’s date of birth is July 8, 1971. 

Case 2:15-cv-11194-GAD-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 03/30/15 PageID.4 Page 4 of 12
5 

21. In early 2007, Plaintiff had been taking education classes in the prison’s 

building trades department and also working in a porter position cleaning showers. 

22. On or about February 2, 2007, Plaintiff, then 35 years old, awoke with 

extremely blurred vision in both eyes. 

23. Due to the blurred vision, Plaintiff transmitted an internal message (a 

“kite”) requesting immediate medical attention. 

24. Plaintiff’s request for immediately medical attention regarding her blurred 

vision was denied and Huron Valley healthcare officials responded that she had to wait 

for her regular 2 year check up to address the complaint of blurred vision. 

25. Plaintiff grieved the healthcare response but her grievance was denied. 

26. Over two months later, on or about April 4, 2007, Plaintiff underwent an 

optometric vision screening examination which resulted in a diagnosis of cataracts in 

both eyes. She was referred to an outside physician, Dr. Lavery of TLC Eyecare and 

Laser Centers. 

27. For the ensuing months, Plaintiff continued to file numerous medical 

request kites requesting that the referral be fulfilled and she be allowed to consult with 

Dr. Lavery. 

28. Over three months later, on or about July 24, 2007, Plaintiff underwent 

another optometric vision screening examination which resulted in a finding that her 

cataracts were getting worse and her vision was becoming greatly impaired. The 

examining physician expressed surprise that she had not had the cataracts removed yet 

and referred her again to Dr. Lavery. 

Case 2:15-cv-11194-GAD-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 03/30/15 PageID.5 Page 5 of 12
6 

29. Plaintiff continued to file medical request kites requesting that the referral 

be fulfilled and she be allowed to consult with Dr. Lavery regarding her worsening eye 

sight. 

30. On or about August 7, 2007, Plaintiff filed a grievance against the 

healthcare optometry department due to their deliberate indifference to the fact that she 

was going blind as a result of the cataracts. 

31. On or about August 21, 2007, Plaintiff was finally examined by Dr. Lavery 

of TLC. He diagnosed significant cataracts and permanent eyesight deficiencies. He 

recommended surgery. 

32. On or about September 20, 2007, Plaintiff file another grievance alleging 

that members of Huron Valley’s healthcare department had falsely reported to the 

physician in optometric vision care, Plaintiff’s instructor in building trades, and Plaintiff’s 

unit officer that Plaintiff’s cataracts had been removed when they indeed had not been 

and she was going blind. 

33. By September 2007, Plaintiff could no longer see well enough to continue 

her educational classes in the prison’s building trades department because she could 

not see to hammer, nail, drill, use a nail gun, saw, read blueprints, read a tape measure, 

or read examination questions. 

34. On or about October 8, 2007, Plaintiff complained in writing that Plaintiff’s 

vocational instructor, Mr. Burnett, had completed an internal form placing her on 

“regular” unemployable status instead of “medical” unemployable status which resulted 

in her being confined to her cell as punishment and also resulted in her losing her porter 

position. 

Case 2:15-cv-11194-GAD-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 03/30/15 PageID.6 Page 6 of 12
7 

35. By November 2007, Plaintiff still had not undergone cataract removal 

surgery. 

36. On or about November 14, 2007, Plaintiff filed another grievance against 

Principal Dick and Building Trades Instructor Burnett for placing her on “regular” 

unemployable status instead of “medical” unemployable status despite their awareness 

that Plaintiff had a medical disability and could not see. 

37. The designation of “regular” unemployable status resulted in Plaintiff being 

punished and penalized for having a medical disability whereby she was confined to her 

cell each day, not allowed to perform her porter duties, denied bathroom privileges, 

denied water, denied holiday privileges, and harassed by unit officers, including but not 

limited to Defendants Cook and Perry, due to her disability. 

38. Plaintiff’s request for accommodation of her disability which required 

having her status be modified from regular unemployable to medical unemployment was 

denied. 

39. In the fall of 2007, Plaintiff and her cell mate requested that Defendant 

MDOC assign Plaintiff’s cell mate as Plaintiff’s aide due to Plaintiff’s blindness. 

Plaintiff’s request for this accommodation of her disability was denied. 

40. On or about November 15, 2007, Plaintiff filed another grievance 

regarding the treatment to which she was being subjected by unit officers due to her 

disability and the confinement to her cell that resulted from the wrongful categorizing of 

regular unemployable status. 

41. By December 2007, Plaintiff still had not undergone cataract removal 

surgery. 

Case 2:15-cv-11194-GAD-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 03/30/15 PageID.7 Page 7 of 12
8 

42. On or about December 18, 2007, Plaintiff filed yet another medical kite 

request stating that she could no longer see at all out of her left eye and her right eye 

was getting almost as bad. 

43. By February 2008, Plaintiff still had not undergone cataract removal 

surgery. 

44. On or about February 8, 2008, Plaintiff, now blind but for seeing “fog”, filed 

yet another grievance against the healthcare personnel regarding the failure to schedule 

the cataract removal surgery. 

45. By March 2008, Plaintiff still had not undergone cataract removal surgery 

and was now totally blind. 

46. On or about March 21, 2008, Plaintiff consulted with Dr. Lavery again who 

noted her total blindness. 

47. By April 2008, Defendants had demonstrated deliberate indifference to 

Plaintiff’s serious medical needs for over 14 months. 

48. On or about April 23, 2008, the cataract on Plaintiff’s left eye was 

surgically removed. 

49. On or about April 30, 2008, the cataract on Plaintiff’s right eye was 

surgically removed. 

50. Plaintiff suffered permanent damage to her eyes due to the delays in 

having the cataracts removed. 

51. After her surgeries, Plaintiff filed additional grievances regarding the 

deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs. 

Case 2:15-cv-11194-GAD-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 03/30/15 PageID.8 Page 8 of 12
9 

52. Plaintiff was reluctant to file litigation against Defendants while she 

remained incarcerated for fear of further discrimination, harassment and retaliation. 

53. Plaintiff was released from prison on April 1, 2014 and this litigation is filed 

within one year of that release pursuant to MCLA §600.5851(1) 

COUNT I 

CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT 

IN VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO THE 

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 

(42 U.S.C. §1983) 

54. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-53 

55. Conduct or acts perpetuated by government officials and agencies which 

deprive a citizen of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the United States 

Constitution and Laws of the United States are actionable under Civil Rights Act of 

1957, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

56. Plaintiff’s vision impairments constituted a serious a medical need. 

57. Defendants’ deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s medical needs constitutes 

an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain and, therefore, is a violation of the Eighth 

Amendment. 

58. Defendants’ acts and omissions deprived Plaintiff of appropriate medical 

care. Defendants further exposed Plaintiff to unnecessary blindness, pain, physical 

injury, humiliation, embarrassment and a shameful state of helplessness. 

59. Defendants’ acts and omissions violated Plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth 

Amendment of the United States Constitution to be free from such cruel and unusual 

punishment. 

Case 2:15-cv-11194-GAD-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 03/30/15 PageID.9 Page 9 of 12
10 

60. All of Defendants’ acts and omissions constituted unnecessary and 

wanton infliction of pain and deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s medical needs and the 

risk that ignoring her disability and the requests for medical treatment would result in 

serious harm to Plaintiff. 

61. Defendants acted in willful disregard and deliberate indifference of 

Plaintiff’s rights and their conduct towards her was outrageous and reckless with no 

penological purpose. 

62. As a result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, Plaintiff experienced and 

continues to experience damage to her eyes, physical pain and suffering, and mental 

anguish. 

COUNT II 

DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION 

IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE 

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 

(42 U.S.C. §1983) 

63. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-62 

64. Defendants’ failure to prevent and remedy the degrading treatment and 

cruel and unusual punishment violated Plaintiff’s rights to equal protection under the 

Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 

65. All of Defendants’ acts and omissions constituted unnecessary and 

wanton infliction of pain and deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. 

66. Defendants acted in willful disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and their conduct 

towards her was outrageous and reckless with no penological purpose. 

Case 2:15-cv-11194-GAD-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 03/30/15 PageID.10 Page 10 of 12
11 

67. As a result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, Plaintiff experienced and 

continues to experience damage to her eyes, physical pain and suffering, and mental 

anguish. 

COUNT III 

VIOLATIONS OF THE 

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 

(42 U.S.C. §12132) 

68. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-67 

69. Defendants’ conduct violated Plaintiff’s rights pursuant to Title II of the 

Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12132. 

70. All of Defendants’ acts and omissions constituted unnecessary and 

wanton infliction of pain and deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. 

71. Defendants acted in willful disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and their conduct 

towards her was outrageous and reckless with no penological purpose. 

72. As a result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, Plaintiff experienced and 

continues to experience damage to her eyes, physical pain and suffering, and mental 

anguish. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an 

award on her behalf against Defendants for: 

A. compensatory damages; 

B. punitive damages; 

C. reasonable attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. §1988; and 

Case 2:15-cv-11194-GAD-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 03/30/15 PageID.11 Page 11 of 12
12 

D. costs and expenses incurred in this action. 

/Teresa J. Gorman 

Teresa J. Gorman (P61001) 

 Teresa J. Gorman PLLC 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 363 West Big Beaver Road, Suite 215 

 Troy, MI 48083 

 (248) 457-6005 

 terigorman@aol.com

JURY DEMAND 

 Plaintiff demands a jury trial. 

 s/Teresa J. Gorman 

 Teresa J. Gorman (P61001) 

 Teresa J. Gorman PLLC 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 363 West Big Beaver Road, Suite 215 

 Troy, MI 48083 

 (248) 457-6005 

 terigorman@aol.com

Case 2:15-cv-11194-GAD-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 03/30/15 PageID.12 Page 12 of 12