Hale v. Young ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ______ THOMAS A. HALE , Plaintiff, Case No. 1:21-cv-623 v. Honorable Paul L. Maloney MICHELLE YOUNG et al., Defendants. ____________________________/ OPINION This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff consented to proceed in all matters in this action under the jurisdiction of a United States magistrate judge. (ECF No. 21.) This case is presently before the Court for preliminary review under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (PLRA), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). The Court is required to conduct this initial review prior to the service of the complaint. See In re Prison Litig. Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131, 1131, 1134 (6th Cir. 1997); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604–05 (6th Cir. 1997). Service of the complaint on the named defendants is of particular significance in defining a putative defendant’s relationship to the proceedings. “An individual or entity named as a defendant is not obliged to engage in litigation unless notified of the action, and brought under a court’s authority, by formal process.” Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 347 (1999). “Service of process, under longstanding tradition in our system of justice, is fundamental to any procedural imposition on a named defendant.” Id. at 350. “[O]ne becomes a party officially, and is required to take action in that capacity, only upon service of a summons or other authority-asserting measure stating the time within which the party served must appear and defend.” Id. (citations omitted). That is, “[u]nless a named defendant agrees to waive service, the summons continues to function as the sine qua non directing an individual or entity to participate in a civil action or forgo procedural or substantive rights.” Id. at 351. Therefore, the PLRA, by requiring courts to review and even resolve a plaintiff’s claims before service, creates a circumstance where there may only be one party to the proceeding—the plaintiff—at the district court level and on appeal. See, e.g., Conway v. Fayette Cnty. Gov’t, 212 F. App’x 418 (6th Cir. 2007) (“Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the district court screened the complaint and dismissed it without prejudice before service was made upon any of the defendants . . . [such that] . . . only [the plaintiff] [wa]s a party to this appeal.”). Here, Plaintiff has consented to a United States magistrate judge conducting all proceedings in this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). That statute provides that “[u]pon the consent of the parties, a full-time United States magistrate judge . . . may conduct any or all proceedings . . . and order the entry of judgment in the case . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Because the named Defendants have not yet been served, the undersigned concludes that they are not presently parties whose consent is required to permit the undersigned to conduct a preliminary review under the PLRA, in the same way they are not parties who will be served with or given notice of this opinion. See Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532 (5th Cir. 1995) (“The record does not contain a consent from the defendants[; h]owever, because they had not been served, they were not parties to the action at the time the magistrate entered judgment.”).1 Under the PLRA, the Court is required to dismiss any prisoner action brought under federal law if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). The Court must read Plaintiff’s pro se complaint indulgently, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (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). In this instance, however, the Court will not address Plaintiff’s allegations because he has failed to comply with his obligations under the Court’s local rules. Local Civil Rule 41.1 provides that “[f]ailure of a plaintiff to keep the Court apprised of a current address shall be grounds for dismissal for want of prosecution.” W.D.Mich. LCivR 41.1. Moreover, the form complaint that Plaintiff used when he filed his amended complaint provides: “The failure of a pro se litigant to keep the court apprised of an address change may be considered cause for dismissal.” (Am. Compl., ECF No. 21, PageID.76.) Plaintiff has failed to comply with his obligation to keep the Court apprised of his current address. At the time Plaintiff filed his complaint, he was detained at the Kent County Correctional 1 But see Coleman v. Lab. & Indus. Rev. Comm’n of Wis., 860 F.3d 461, 471 (7th Cir. 2017) (concluding that, when determining which parties are required to consent to proceed before a United States magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), “context matters” and the context the United States Supreme Court considered in Murphy Bros. was nothing like the context of a screening dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)); Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503–04 (9th Cir. 2017) (relying on Black’s Law Dictionary for the definition of “parties” and not addressing Murphy Bros.); Burton v. Schamp, 25 F.4th 198, 207 n.26 (3d Cir. Feb. 10, 2022) (premising its discussion of “the term ‘parties’ solely in relation to its meaning in Section 636(c)(1), and . . . not tak[ing] an opinion on the meaning of ‘parties’ in other contexts”). Facility (KCCF). KCCF records indicate that Plaintiff was released on February 24, 2022. See https://www.accesskent.com/InmateLookup/showDetail.do?bookNo=2011175 (last visited Mar. 21, 2022). Additionally, the Michigan Department of Corrections Offender Tracking Information System indicates that Plaintiff was discharged from parole supervision on March 2, 2022. See https://mdocweb.state.mi.us/otis2/otis2profile.aspx?mdocNumber=252207 (last visited Mar. 21, 2022). Plaintiff has had no contact with the Court for over two months. Because Plaintiff has wholly failed to comply with his obligation to keep the Court apprised of his current address, the Court will issue a judgment dismissing the case without prejudice for lack of prosecution. White v. City of Grand Rapids, 34 F. App’x 210 (6th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff’s pending motions for release (ECF No. 10), for home confinement (ECF No. 12), for preliminary injunction regarding the COVID-19 protections afforded inmates and detainees at KCCF (ECF No. 14), and for compensation and for a federal inspector (ECF No. 24) will be denied as moot in light of Plaintiff’s release and the dismissal of his claims. Dated: March 22, 2022 /s/ Ray Kent Ray Kent United States Magistrate Judge