Martens V Reinly
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Chance Martens,
Plaintiff, Case No. 25-cv-11565
Hon. Nancy G. Edmunds
v.
Reinig, et al.,
Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL
This is a pro se prisoner civil rights case. Michigan state prisoner Chance
Martens is incarcerated at the G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility in Jackson,
Michigan. He asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff also filed a motion
to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which the Court has granted.
(ECF No. 2, 5.) Because he is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is authorized
to screen the case and dismiss it in its entirety or in part at any time if it determines
the action is: (i) frivolous or malicious or (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
In his complaint, Martens asserts that corrections officers used excessive force
when he was tased on January 19, 2024, and failed to provide medical care in the
aftermath. He alleges violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. For the
reasons discussed, the Court dismisses Martens’ Fourteenth Amendment claim.
I. Standards of Review
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint set forth “a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,”
as well as “a demand for the relief sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), (3). The purpose
of this rule is 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, 555
(2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957) and Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a)(2)). The notice pleading standard requires more than the bare assertion of legal
conclusions or “an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “A pleading that offers ‘labels and
conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
do.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “Nor does a complaint suffice if it
tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’” Id. at 1949
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
To state a federal civil rights claim, a plaintiff must allege that (1) he was
deprived of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the federal Constitution or
laws of the United States, and (2) the deprivation was caused by a person acting
under color of state law. Flagg Bros. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 155-57 (1978). A
pro se civil rights complaint is to be construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520-21 (1972).
II. Complaint
Martens names five corrections officers as defendants: Reinly, Stembock,
Buley-Neumas, Garcia, and John Doe. The events giving rise to his complaint stem
from a January 19, 2024, incident at the St. Louis Correctional Facility. Martens
claims that he was given conflicting instructions from defendants regarding where
he was supposed to be. (ECF No. 1, PageID.9.) The defendant officers interpreted
Martens’ actions as noncompliance. (Id.) In the process of trying to handcuff
Martens, Defendant Stembock tased Martens multiple times in his spine. (Id.)
Defendants then dragged Martens to segregation while he screamed out in pain and
ignored his requests for medical attention. (Id. at PageID.13.) He claims he now
has chronic back and neck pain, insomnia, and mental and emotional distress. (Id.
at PageID.13-14.)
III. Discussion
Martens claims that Defendants’ use of excessive force and their deliberate
indifference to his medical needs violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments.
States are obligated under the Constitution to provide medical care to
incarcerated people. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102-03 (1976). The source
of the right depends on whether the inmate is a convicted prisoner or pretrial
detainee. The Eighth Amendment is the source of protection for convicted prisoners;
the Fourteenth Amendment protects pretrial detainees. See Helphenstine v. Lewis
Cnty., 60 F.4th 305, 315 (6th Cir. 2023); see also Blackmore v. Kalamazoo Cnty.,
390 F.3d 890, 895 (6th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted) (explaining that the Eighth
Amendment forbids cruel and unusual punishment through acts of deliberate
indifference whereas the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause provides
corresponding protection to a pretrial detainee). At the time of the alleged
constitutional violations, Martens was—and remains—a convicted prisoner.
Accordingly, the Eighth Amendment provides the applicable standard, and the
Fourteenth Amendment claim will be dismissed.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim fails to state
a claim for which relief may be granted and is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Nancy G. Edmunds
NANCY G. EDMUNDS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: July 22, 2025
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
July 22, 2025, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
/s/ Marlena Williams
Case Manager