McCrimmon v. Thomas et al
Filing
24
OPINION and ORDER Granting Certain Defendants' 17 Motion for Summary Judgment or to Dismiss; Granting 19 Motion for Summary Judgment or to Dismiss; and Requiring Plaintiff to Provide Additional Information. Signed by District Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III. (DPar)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
AMY SUE MCCRIMMON,
Case No. 2:17-cv-12108
Plaintiff,
HON. STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
v.
J. THOMAS, et al.,
Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING CERTAIN DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR TO DISMISS [17, 19]
AND REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Plaintiff, a Michigan prisoner, sued ten Michigan Department of Corrections
employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged "retaliatory harassment," "hostile work
environment," "libel and slander," "discrimination and prejudice," "sexual harassment,"
"intentional infliction of emotional distress and mental anguish," and "deliberate
indifference." Plaintiff's claims were based on her interactions with the employees while
she was incarcerated. Six of the defendants waived service of process and filed motions
for summary judgment or to dismiss. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will
grant judgment for eight of the ten defendants and require Plaintiff to provide additional
information regarding Defendants A. Thomas and J. Thomas.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court must grant summary judgment "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." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party must identify specific portions of
1
the record "which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material
fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the moving party has
met its burden, the non-moving party may not simply rest on the pleadings, but must
present "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Matsushita Elec.
Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(e)) (emphasis omitted).
A fact is material if proof of that fact would establish or refute an essential
element of the cause of action or defense. Kendall v. Hoover Co., 751 F.2d 171, 174
(6th Cir. 1984). A dispute over material facts is genuine "if the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). In considering a motion for summary judgment,
the Court must view the facts and draw all reasonable inferences "in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party." 60 Ivy St. Corp. v. Alexander, 822 F.2d 1432, 1435
(6th Cir. 1987).
DISCUSSION
As a preliminary matter, the Court will apply the motion for summary judgment
standard, rather than the motion to dismiss standard, because the moving defendants
rely on an exhibit outside the pleadings. See Fed. R. Civ. P 7(a) and 12(d).
Eight of the defendants are entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiff has
failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. Before a prisoner may bring a claim
under § 1983, she must exhaust all available administrative remedies. 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e(a); Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85 (2006). The requirement "applies to all
inmate suits about prison life" and preempts further consideration of the unexhausted
claims even if the case proceeds with respect to other, fully exhausted claims. Porter v.
2
Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002); see also Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 219–24
(2007). To exhaust her administrative remedies, Plaintiff must properly comply with all
steps of MDOC Policy Directive 03.02.130. Belser v. James, No. 16-2578, 2017 WL
5479595, at *1 (6th Cir. June 6, 2017); see also Woodford, 548 U.S. at 90. The Policy
Directive provides an escalating, multi-step dispute resolution process that starts with
an attempt at an oral resolution, proceeds to a written grievance, and ultimately ends, if
necessary, at a "Step III Appeal." Belser, 2017 WL 5479595, at *1. Thus, to exhaust her
administrative remedies, Plaintiff was required to file a grievance naming all persons
involved in the underlying allegations and prosecute the claim through a Step III Appeal.
The Court has reviewed the record, and finds that Plaintiff properly prosecuted
her claims through a Step III Appeal only as to Defendants A. Thomas and J. Thomas.
Plaintiff's prison records contain four grievances prosecuted through a Step III Appeal,
but only two pertain to the claims here: Grievance ID WHV-15-08-3612-18b (the "18b
Grievance") and Grievance ID WHV-15-08-3522-28b (the "28b Grievance"). ECF 17-3.
In the 18b Grievance, Plaintiff alleged that she was strip searched by Defendant
J. Thomas. Id. at 128–135. Afterwards, Defendant J. Thomas instructed Plaintiff to pick
up her clothes and get dressed. Plaintiff refused the order because picking up her
clothes would expose her to an uncovered window on a door. Defendant J. Thomas
then called Defendant A. Thomas, who allegedly did not believe Plaintiff's version of
events. Defendants Allen and Johnson are also named in the 18b Grievance, but their
mention is incidental to the claims. Plaintiff omitted their names in the later stages of the
grievance process. Id. at 128–30.
3
In the 28b Grievance, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant J. Thomas rolled her eyes
at Plaintiff during a different strip search. Id. at 122–27. Plaintiff also named Defendant
Lee, but again her mention was incidental to Plaintiff's claim. And Defendant Lee was
omitted from Plaintiff's filings in the advanced stages of the grievance process. Id. at
123–24.
Because Defendants Stewart, Patel, Braggs, Hardwick, and Russell were not
even mentioned by Plaintiff in her grievances, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to
exhaust her administrative remedies as to those defendants. Coleman v. Rich, No. 161263, 2016 WL 9650985, at *2 (6th Cir. Dec. 20, 2016). And although Defendants Allen,
Johnson, and Lee are mentioned in the initial stages of the grievance process, Plaintiff
has not exhausted her administrative remedies as to them either. Their mention is
incidental, so it is unclear that Plaintiff was alleging wrongdoing against them. And even
if she were, Plaintiff did not prosecute the claims through the Step III Appeal because
she omitted their names from the later stages of the grievance process. Consequently,
all defendants—with the exception of Defendants A. Thomas and J. Thomas—are
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.1
As to Defendants A. Thomas and J. Thomas, the Court needs additional
information for the case to proceed. In August 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff's
application to proceed without prepaying fees and ordered the U.S. Marshal Service to
serve all defendants. The U.S. Marshal Service was unable to provide service to
Defendants A. Thomas and J. Thomas because neither individual works at the address
Defendants Braggs and Lee have not been served or filed a motion, but they are
entitled to judgment for the same reasons because allowing the case to proceed against
them would be frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989).
1
4
provided. The Court will grant Plaintiff 60 days from the date of this order to provide the
U.S. Marshal Service adequate addresses for service, otherwise the case will be
dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for failure to serve.
ORDER
WHEREFORE it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' Motions for Summary
Judgment or to Dismiss [17, 19] are GRANTED. The claims against Defendants T.
Allen, D. Johnson, A. Stewart, S. Patel, C. Lee, S. Braggs, S. Hardwick, and R. Russel
are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall provide the U.S. Marshal Service,
no later than 60 days from the date of this order, with an adequate address to serve
Defendants A. Thomas and J. Thomas. Failure to provide adequate addresses will
result in dismissal of the remaining claims for failure to serve.
SO ORDERED.
s/ Stephen J. Murphy, III
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
United States District Judge
Dated: December 15, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
and/or counsel of record on December 15, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/ David Parker
Case Manager
5
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?