Robinson V. Hendershot et. al

Filing 10

ORDER Granting 8 Plaintiff's Motion to Show Cause, Vacating the Court's Order to Show Cause 7 , and Allowing Plaintiff to Proceed With This Action. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)

Case 2:19-cv-12836-DPH-MJH ECF No. 10, PageID.75 Filed 11/20/20 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

TIMOTHY RODRICK ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 2-19-cv-12836

CORRECTIONS OFFICER HENDERSHOT,
JOHN DOE #1, JOHN DOE #2, and
JOHN DOE #3,

HON. DENISE PAGE HOOD

Defendants.
______________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE [8],
VACATING THE COURT'S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE [7], AND
ALLOWING PLAINTIFF TO PROCEED WITH THIS ACTION
I. Introduction
Plaintiff Timothy Rodrick Robinson, a state prisoner in the custody of the
Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC), filed a pro se civil rights complaint
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) He sought compensatory and punitive
damages from four state correctional officials employed by MDOC at the St. Louis
Correctional Facility in St. Louis, Michigan. Plaintiff identified the defendants as
corrections officer Hendershot, corrections officer John Doe #1, corrections officer
John Doe #2, and corrections sergeant John Doe #3. Id. at PageID.1-2.

Case 2:19-cv-12836-DPH-MJH ECF No. 10, PageID.76 Filed 11/20/20 Page 2 of 4

Plaintiff alleged in his complaint that, on August 14, 2016, defendants
Hendershot, John Doe #1, and John Doe #2 failed to intervene or to protect him and
were accomplices to a theft of Plaintiff's personal property by other inmates.
Plaintiff claimed that the defendants' conduct was retaliation for Plaintiff's
administrative grievance against a corrections officer named Sholtz.

Id. at

PageID.13-16. He also asserted that John Doe #3 was liable for not adequately
supervising the other defendants and for not checking on prisoners when making
rounds of prison cells. Id. at PageID.16-17.
In a motion to amend (ECF No. 6), Plaintiff asked for permission to add
corrections officer Anderson as a defendant. Plaintiff alleged that, on October 4,
2019, Anderson endangered him at the Chippewa Correctional Facility in Kincheloe,
Michigan by reading aloud some of Plaintiff's legal papers, which identified Plaintiff
as a homosexual and a snitch. Id. at PageID.39-41.
On April 16, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to amend without
prejudice because the proposed amendment concerned an entirely different incident
than the one described in Plaintiff's complaint, and because Plaintiff had failed to
satisfy the test for joinder of defendants. (ECF No. 7). In the same order, the Court
directed Plaintiff to show cause why his complaint should not be dismissed for
failure to comply with the three-year statute of limitations for civil rights complaints.
The Court pointed out that the incident at the St. Louis Correctional Facility occurred
2

Case 2:19-cv-12836-DPH-MJH ECF No. 10, PageID.77 Filed 11/20/20 Page 3 of 4

on August 14, 2016, and that Plaintiff filed his complaint more than three years later,
on September 24, 2019.
On May 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed a response to the Court's order to show cause.
He called his response a "motion to show cause why [his] complaint should not be
dismissed as time barred." (ECF No. 8.) He argues in his motion that his complaint
is timely because the statute of limitations was tolled while he exhausted MDOC's
administrative remedies regarding the incident at the St. Louis Correctional Facility.
Id. at PageID.58-60.
II. Discussion
As the Court pointed out in its previous order, the applicable statute of
limitations for Plaintiff's complaint is Michigan's three-year statute of limitations for
personal injury claims. McCune v. Grand Rapids, 842 F.2d 903, 905 (6th Cir. 1988)
(citing Carroll v. Wilkerson, 782 F.2d 44, 45 (6th Cir. 1986)). The theft of Plaintiff's
property occurred on August 14, 2016, and Plaintiff did not sign and mail his
complaint until September 24, 2019.
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), however, Plaintiff was
required to exhaust administrative remedies for his claims before filing his
complaint. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (stating that “[n]o action shall be brought with
respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law,
by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such
3

Case 2:19-cv-12836-DPH-MJH ECF No. 10, PageID.78 Filed 11/20/20 Page 4 of 4

administrative remedies as are available are exhausted”). “The statute of limitations
for claims subject to the PLRA is tolled while the plaintiff exhausts his required
administrative remedies.” Surles v. Andison, 678 F.3d 452, 458 (6th Cir. 2012)
(citing Brown v. Morgan, 209 F.3d 595, 596 (6th Cir. 2000)).
Exhibits to Plaintiff's response to the Court's order to show cause indicate that
Plaintiff filed two grievances about the theft of his property on September 1, 2016.
(ECF No. 8, PageID.62-63.) Grievance number SLF-16-09-0946-19F was denied at
the third and final step of MDOC's grievance process on October 13, 2016. Id. at
PageID.69. Plaintiff had three years from October 13, 2016 – until October 13, 2019
– to file his complaint. Because he filed his complaint before then, on September
24, 2019, the complaint was filed in a timely manner.
The Court, therefore, grants Plaintiff's motion to show cause why his
complaint should not be dismissed as time barred (ECF No. 8) and vacates the
Court's order to show cause (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff may proceed with this action. A
future order will follow.

s/Denise Page Hood
Dated: November 20, 2020

United States District Judge

4