Temujin Kensu v. Corizon, Inc.


RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 21a0163p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ TEMUJIN KENSU, │ Plaintiff-Appellant, │ │ v. │ No. 21-1083 > │ CORIZON, INC.; PATRICIA SCHMIDT; KEITH PAPENDICK; │ RICKEY J. COLEMAN; EUTRILLA TAYLOR; MINNIE │ MARTIN; WILLIAM BORGERDING; RANDALL HAAS; │ GEORGE STEPHENSON; CHRIS STEECE; DARRELL M. │ STEWARD; LIA GULICK; LORI KISSAU; JEFFREY W. │ BOMBER; ROBERT LACY; KIM FARRIS; RICHARD │ RUSSELL; LISA ADRAY; ANGELA FORTESCUE; PATRICIA │ WILLARD; PATRICK WARREN; HOWARD TYREE; │ JOSHUA A. BUSKIRK; GINA COUTURIER; RAMESH │ KILARU; PENNY RODGERS; REGINA JENKINS-GRANT, │ AMIE JENKINS, │ Defendants-Appellees. │ ┘ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit. No. 2:19-cv-10616—Linda V. Parker, District Judge. Decided and Filed: July 20, 2021 Before: BOGGS, CLAY, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges. _________________ COUNSEL ON BRIEF: Keith L. Altman, THE LAW OFFICE OF KEITH ALTMAN, Farmington Hills, Michigan, for Appellant. James T. Farrell, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Michigan Department of Corrections Appellees. Jonathan C. Lanesky, CHAPMAN LAW GROUP, Troy, Michigan, for Corizon Appellees. No. 21-1083 Kensu v. Corizon, Inc., et al. Page 2 _________________ OPINION _________________ BOGGS, Circuit Judge. Temujin Kensu, also known as Frederick Freeman, is a permanent resident of the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC), sentenced to life imprisonment for first-degree murder. See generally Freeman v. Trombley, 744 F. Supp. 2d 697 (E.D. Mich. 2010), rev’d, 483 F. App’x 51 (6th Cir. 2012). Alleging several deprivations of constitutional rights, he filed a complaint against Corizon, a correctional-health-care contractor, and twenty-nine Corizon and MDOC employees. Finding his complaint too long and unclear, the district court dismissed it and let Mr. Kensu try again. He did, but it was still too long and unclear. The district court explained the problems with Mr. Kensu’s complaint in more detail and gave him one last chance to amend it. But, perhaps channeling the spirit of Polonius, Mr. Kensu made his complaint longer instead of reducing it to a plain statement of his grievance. The district court therefore dismissed his complaint with prejudice. For the reasons below, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND Mr. Kensu has filed several actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 during his sentence. One of them led to a jury trial in which he won $325,002 (including $285,000 in punitive damages) after the jury found that five defendants had been “deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need[s].” Verdict Form, Kensu v. Buskirk, No. 13-cv-10279 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 28, 2016), ECF No. 139. Since then, Mr. Kensu has filed several more suits against MDOC and Corizon personnel, including putative class actions, some of which remain pending. Amidst his flurry of legal activity, Mr. Kensu began this case in March 2019. His original complaint had 808 numbered allegations—not counting suballegations—spanning 180 pages. Although his counsel failed to identify this case as related to any of his earlier actions—in violation of a local rule—the district court determined that it was …

Original document

Add comment


Recent Posts

Recent Comments