Dye v. Hatton et al
Filing
28
OPINION and ORDER granting Defendants' 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Bernard A. Friedman. (JCur)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TIMOTHY DYE, 302488,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Civil Action No. 17-CV-10183
HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN
JANA HATTON and
LORI GIDLEY,
Defendants.
__________________/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This matter is presently before the Court on defendants’ motion for summary
judgment [docket entry 20]. Plaintiff has filed a response in opposition. Pursuant to E.D.
Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2), the Court shall decide this motion without a hearing.
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, is a state prison inmate, currently confined
at the Central Michigan Correctional Facility (“STF”) in St. Louis, Michigan. He is suing
the STF warden, Lori Gidley, and the STF grievance coordinator, Jana Hatton, for interfering
with his right to file grievances. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that
I wrote 8 grievances between 8/30/16 and 11/15/16, which were
ALL rejected claiming “no violation of policy cited.” I wrote 3
additional grievances dated 12/2/16, which were rejected
claiming “Duplicate.” I was placed on grievance restriction
claiming Duplicative and Non-Grievable Issues. Grievance
restriction was issued by the grievance coordinator and
approved by the Warden without investigation. The grievance
restriction was retaliation for trying to seek resolution to
grievable issues. Also they retaliated against me by rejecting
my grievances so no true issues are resolved but brushed under
the rug, so to speak. Their blatant abuse of authority by refusing
to resolve issues. I sent a letter to the grievance coordinator
asking for a grievance to grieve the issues within, and was
rejected by the grievance coordinator claiming “not a grievable
issue,” while attempting to cover herself because I cannot write
a grievance without her permission... a clear conflict of interest.
Compl. ¶ IV.B (ellipsis in original). Plaintiff claims that defendants have violated his “5th
and 14th Amendment Rights of the US Constitution; Due process [and his] 8th Amendment
Rights of the US Constitution; Cruel and Unusual Punishment.” Id. ¶ II.B. For relief, he
seeks damages “in excess of $70,000,” costs, and “a written apology from both defendants,
and I want it certified so I know it isnt signed with a rubber stamp.” Id.¶ VI. Plaintiff also
“want[s] [to be] removed from grievance restriction, Modified Access, and I want an
injunctive relief decision stating I cannot ever be placed on Modified Access without a well
documented reason.” Id. (alterations added).
Plaintiff has attached copies of the referenced grievances and responses to his
complaint. In his first grievance (***-0835-28B), plaintiff alleged:
I was called up to staff desk @ 1732 HRS. C/O informed me
Health Services called and threatened my life and person! I
asked what I should do and C/O said I should write grievance!
C/O told me Health Services called and told him (the C/O) that
if I come to med line early again, they’ll write me an out of
place! If cameras are viewed, I’ve never whent to med line
early! My life and person are in danger! Im in fear for my life!
Any falsified misconduct can cost parole board to flop me which
can cost my life to waste away in prison for whatever the flop
time is! Also, if I make threat to staff or administration, they’d
write me an insolence misconduct! My life is in danger from
falsified tickets and staff corruption! I asked C/O which nurse
made the threat, he told me he didn’t know which nurse made
the threat! I expect staff retaliation for bring staff corruption
2
and threats of harm to my person to light! This grievance is my
evidence of the facility allowing Health Service staff authority
to make threats to prisoner population and get away with it!
Id., PageID 16. This grievance was denied on the grounds that “[s]tating that a misconduct
could/might be written does not constitute a threat” and because “[n]o violation of policy
cited.” Id. PageID 16-18.
In his second grievance (***-0835-17I), plaintiff alleged:
I talked to sargent working f/s @ lunch chow then spoke to C/O
Parsons working A unit morning shift. I was forced not to eat
chow!
Food steward Speakerman took me up to the sargent working
food service lines during lunch and made false claims of me
stealing. Sargent said I had to go back to the unit. I asked what
Im suppose to eat. Sargent said he’d send over snack bag. At
[illegible] pm, I asked unit C/O Parsons if she could check on
snack bag cause I was forced to leave food service without
eatting cause I was falsely accused of stealing. Unit C/O said
she wasn’t going to bother with it cause she’s about to get off.
I asked, “so I just starve?” And she said yes! I demand
sanctions be enposed on C/O Parsons and Sargent working food
service for violating my life and causing me to starve! I also
request $25,000!
Id., PageID 19. This grievance was denied on the grounds that “there appears to have been
miscommunication between staff and the grievant did not receive a snack bag” and because
“the grievant’s proposed relief of discipline of staff and payment of monetary punitive
damages cannot be granted in the grievance process.” Id. PageID 21.
In his third grievance (***-1102-27A), plaintiff alleged:
I was laid in by C/O Martinez @ 4:40 pm on 10-3-16 for a theft
ticket wrote against me for someone else setting me up. I
worked in food service! From 10-4-16 to 10-13-16, Ive been
3
talking to FSL Baker, FSS Simcox, FSD Elizalde, Sgt Gillespie,
and unit officers about my ticket. Its been 2 weeks and I still
have not been reviewed on said ticket! I request my lay in be
lifted and me return to my work detail! I also request back pay
from 10-3-16 until I reenter my food service work detail.
Id., PageID 22 (emphasis in original). This grievance was denied on the grounds that it
related to a “[m]isconduct hearings issue.” Id.
In his fourth grievance (***-1103-28B), plaintiff alleged:
C/O Martinez runs around food services like he’s the Food
Service Director when in reality he aint nothing but security. He
wanna act like he’s God over in the chow hall, telling and
bossing people around. Well, since he dont want to do his real
job, and dont know how to treat prisoners, maybe he needs to be
reassigned to the control center! He refuses to let “me” (or
anyone else) know when Health Services calls my unit to med
line in the evenings, knowing I can only go with my unit and if
I miss it, Health Services will write tickets.
Id., PageID 24. This grievance was denied on the grounds that “[n]o policy violations
cited.” Id.
In his fifth grievance (***-1104-28I), plaintiff alleged:
@ approximately 1420 on 10-13-16 in the commissary with
food service supervisor Ms. H, Mr Martinez who works food
service on 2nd shift threatened me in front of Mrs H telling me
he’s gonna find a way to write me a ticket and fire me from my
work detail in food services cause its “his kitchen” and I dont
deserve to work in food services. He said he’d set me up if he
has to. Ms H heard Mr Martinez threaten me. I brung it to FSL
Ms Bakers attention that night and she said she’d bring it to FSD
Elizaldes attention. If Mr Martinez cant work with prison
population, then he should be reassigned to the control center!
Id., PageID 27. This grievance was denied on the grounds that “Trinity staff do not supervise
4
C/O Martinez.” Id.
In his sixth grievance (***-1114-28B), plaintiff alleged:
I work in F/S as a kosher cook. At approximately 1833 on 1017-16, I rang the buzzer for the kosher cooks to inform a food
stewart that I need out of the kosher room and C/O Martinez
walked by and banged loudly on the door, opened the door and
threatened to write me a ticket and fire me if I ring the buzzer
anymore. And he walked back out the kosher room locking me
back in the room! He would not even let me out the room! I
had to wait 40 minutes for a stewart to pass by the room to let
me out. I was super late for med line! I already take meds for
anxiety and not only did my anxiety go up cause C/O Martinez
gave me a direct order not to ring the buzzer, I could of got a
ticket for being late for meds. If he cant do his job right or
without being corrupt, he should be reassigned to control center.
I have no other money except from my detail and all C/O
Martinez keeps doing is pushing me to my snapping point
because of his curruption. I brung it to FSD Elizalde on 10-1816 and she said she’d email the inspector of the corrupt direct
order.
Id., PageID 30. This grievance was denied on the grounds that “[n]o violation of policy
cited.” Id.
In his seventh grievance (***-1175-28B), which takes up two single-spaced
typewritten pages, plaintiff alleged that after being found not guilty on a misconduct charge
he was demoted from his semi-skilled position in food services to an unskilled position and
that the food service director violated his rights by telling him he could remain in the higher
position but then, apparently, changing her mind and demoting him. Id., PageID 33-35.
Among other things, plaintiff requested back pay and $50,000 in damages. Id. Page ID 35.
This grievance was denied on the grounds that there was “[n]o violation of policy or
5
procedure.” Id. PageID 36.
And in his eighth grievance (***-1181-28B), plaintiff alleged:
I was serving on the line in Food Services at 17:20 hours. An
inmate came through the line and asked for an extra scoop of
butter. Food Service Supervisor Ms. Berry stepped up to me
and stated if I give him extra butter, shed fire me and make sure
I could NOT beat the ticket she’d write on me. I questioned her
about what she was talking about and she said I beat the ticket
FSS Loomis wrote on me but I would never be able to beat the
one she’d write on me. . . .
Id., PageID 39. Plaintiff requested punitive damages and “a written apology for retaliation,
threatening behavior, cruel and unusual punishment, and her power and control issue.” Id.
PageID 40. This grievance was denied on the grounds that “[n]otifying a prisoner that he
will receive a misconduct for a rule violation is not a violation of policy.” Id.
The three grievances plaintiff alleges were rejected as being duplicative are
also attached to the complaint, but they are illegible. Id., PageID 43, 45, 47.
“To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation
of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and must show that the
deprivation of that right was committed by a person acting under color of state law.”
Harbin-Bey v. Rutter, 420 F.3d 571, 575 (6th Cir. 2005). Further, “a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for
6
the misconduct alleged.” Id.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant
shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” “[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between
the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment;
the requirement is that there be no genuine dispute as to any material fact.” Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986) (emphasis in original). Viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the opposing party, summary judgment may be
granted only if the evidence is so one-sided that a reasonable fact-finder could not find for
the opposing party. See id. at 248-50; Street v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1478-80
(6th Cir. 1989). In other words, “[a] material issue of fact exists where a reasonable jury,
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, could return a
verdict for that party.” Vollrath v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 899 F.2d 533, 534 (6th Cir. 1990).
“The pivotal question is whether the party bearing the burden of proof has presented a jury
question as to each element of its case.” Hartsel v. Keys, 87 F.3d 795, 799 (6th Cir. 1996).
Plaintiff has shown only that he filed grievances, that he received what he
perceived to be unsatisfactory responses, and that he now has been placed on “modified
access” to the grievance process. These facts do not state a claim for a violation of plaintiff’s
rights under the First,1 Fifth, Eighth, or Fourteenth Amendments. No First Amendment
1
The complaint does not allege a violation of plaintiff’s First Amendment rights, but
defendants note that it does so implicitly by alleging retaliation. See Defs.’ Summ. J. Br. at 11.
7
retaliation claim is stated because such a claim
essentially entails three elements: (1) the plaintiff engaged in
protected conduct; (2) an adverse action was taken against the
plaintiff that would deter a person of ordinary firmness from
continuing to engage in that conduct; and (3) there is a causal
connection between elements one and two—that is, the adverse
action was motivated at least in part by the plaintiff’s protected
conduct.
Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378, 394 (6th Cir. 1999). Placement of an inmate on
modified access is not “adverse action” within the meaning of Thaddeus-X. See Kennedy v.
Tallio, 20 F. App’x 469, 471 (6th Cir. 2001). As provided in Michigan Department of
Corrections (“MDOC”) Policy Directive 03.02.130 ¶ HH, modified access is a temporary
status (at most 90 days, extendable for 30 additional days for further violations) imposed on
inmates who file “an excessive number of grievances which are vague, duplicative, raise nongrievable issues, or contain prohibited language.” Defs.’ Ex. A. While on this status, an
inmate “shall be able to obtain grievance forms only through the Step I Grievance
Coordinator,” and the form must be provided to the inmate if the coordinator “determines
that the issue the prisoner . . . wishes to grieve is grievable and otherwise meets the criteria
outlined in this policy.” Id. ¶ KK. This measure is temporary and non-retaliatory, and it does
not restrict inmates’ access to the grievance process or to the courts to an extent that raises
First Amendment concerns. See Walker v. Mich. Dep’t of Corrs., 128 F. App’x 441, 445-47
(6th Cir. 2005); Kennedy, 20 F. App’x at 470-71.
Nor has plaintiff stated a due process claim. Plaintiff has cited no authority,
and the Court is aware of none, suggesting that he has a property or liberty interest either in
8
receiving satisfactory responses to grievances or in unrestricted access to the prison
grievance system. Nor has he cited any authority suggesting that the temporary restriction
on his ability to file grievances (requiring only that he obtain the grievance forms from the
grievance coordinator who must be persuaded that the grievance raises a grievable issue and
complies with the grievance policy) constitutes a deprivation of a liberty or property interest
that is of constitutional magnitude. Further, the Sixth Circuit has held that placing inmates
on modified access does not violate their due process rights because “there is no
constitutionally protected due process right to unfettered access to prison grievance
procedures.” Alexander v. Vittitow, No. 17-1075, 2017 WL 7050641, at *3 (6th Cir. Nov.
9, 2017). Nor is there any constitutionally protected right “to a detailed opinion” as to why
a grievance has been denied. Walker, 128 F. App’x at 447.
Nor has plaintiff stated a claim under the Eighth Amendment, which protects
prison inmates from “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452
U.S. 337, 346 (1981), and from being subjected to conditions “that transgress today’s broad
and idealistic concepts of dignity, civilized standards, humanity, and decency.” Hutto v.
Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 685 (1978). By no stretch of the imagination have defendants
subjected plaintiff to cruel and unusual punishment by responding to his grievances as they
did or by temporarily placing him on modified status in response to his abuse of the
grievance process. Accordingly,
9
IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted.
Dated: September 27, 2018
Detroit, Michigan
s/Bernard A. Friedman
BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each attorney or party of
record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on September 27, 2018.
s/Johnetta M. Curry-Williams
Case Manager
10
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?