TEMUJIN KENSU v. 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 - Articles

All Content

TEMUJIN KENSU v. 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

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Jul 20, 2021

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ON BRIEF: Keith L. Altman, THE LAW OFFICE OF KEITH ALTMAN, Farmington Hills, Michigan, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ON BRIEF: James T. Farrell, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Michigan Department of Corrections Appellees.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Jonathan C. Lanesky, CHAPMAN LAW GROUP, Troy, Michigan, for Corizon Appellees.

Judge(s): BOGGS, CLAY, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit

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.

Attachments: