Williams v. Winn et al

Filing 84

ORDER (1) Overruling Defendants' 81 Objections to Magistrate Judge's 80 Report and Recommendation, (2) Adopting Recommended Disposition of 80 Report and Recommendation, (3) Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' 49 Motion for Summary Judgment, (4) Denying Plaintiff's 50 Motion for Summary Judgment, and (5) Denying Plaintiff's 78 Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

Case 4:18-cv-11060-MFL-PTM ECF No. 84, PageID.1104 Filed 01/20/21 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ROBERT B. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 18-cv-11060
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
THOMAS O. WINN AND TIA CLARK,
Defendants.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER (1) OVERRULING DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS (ECF No. 81)
TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF
No. 80), (2) ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION, (3) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No.
49), (4) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(ECF No. 50), AND (5) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT
JUDGMENT (ECF No. 78)
Plaintiff Robert B. Williams is an African American state prisoner in the
custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections (the “MDOC”). In this pro se
civil-rights action, Williams alleges that two MDOC employees – Defendants
Thomas O. Winn and Tia Clark – violated his rights under the First Amendment, the
Equal Protection Clause, and the Due Process Clause when they, among other things,
denied him the ability to participate in the Saginaw Correctional Facility’s Paws for
a Cause dog training program (the “Dog Program”). (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) The
Court previously dismissed Williams’ claims under the First Amendment and Due

1

Case 4:18-cv-11060-MFL-PTM ECF No. 84, PageID.1105 Filed 01/20/21 Page 2 of 9

Process Clause. (See Order, ECF No. 22.) Thus, Williams’ only remaining claim is
that Defendants violated his rights under the Equal Protection Clause when they
prohibited him from participating in the Dog Program while allowing other,
similarly situated white inmates access to the program. (See id.) More specifically,
he says that when he applied to participate in the Dog Program, one of the
requirements for participation was that an inmate “[m]ust not be serving [time] for
[Criminal Sexual Conduct], Animal Cruelty, Torture, Domestic Violence, Stalking,
or Kidnapping” (id., PageID.53), and he contends that Defendants prohibited him
from participating because of a domestic violence offense while allowing other
white prisoners who were convicted of disqualifying crimes into the program.
Three motions are currently pending before the Court: (1) Defendants’ motion
for summary judgment (ECF No. 49), (2) Williams’ motion for summary judgment
(ECF No. 50), and (3) Williams’ motion for a default judgment (ECF No. 78). On
July 30, 2020, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation in
which she recommended that the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants’
motion and deny Williams’ two motions (the “R&R”). (See R&R, ECF No. 80.)
Defendants have now filed timely objections to the R&R (the “Objections”).
(See Objections, ECF No. 81.) For the reasons explained below, the Objections are
OVERRULED.

2

Case 4:18-cv-11060-MFL-PTM ECF No. 84, PageID.1106 Filed 01/20/21 Page 3 of 9

I
Where a party objects to a portion of a Magistrate Judge’s report and
recommendation, the Court reviews that portion de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3); Lyons v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 351 F. Supp. 2d 659, 661 (E.D. Mich. 2004).
The Court has no duty to conduct an independent review of the portions of a report
and recommendation to which a party has not objected. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140, 149 (1985). In addition, the failure to raise objections waives any further right
to appeal. See Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir.
1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir.
1987).
Here, Williams has not filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation that the Court deny his motions for summary judgement (ECF No.
49) and motion for default judgment (ECF No. 78). Accordingly, the Court will
ADOPT the Magistrate’s recommended disposition of those motions and DENY
them.

In addition, Williams has not objected to the Magistrate Judge’s

recommendation that the Court grant Defendants’ summary judgment motion with
respect to his claims brought against Defendants in their official capacities. (See
R&R, ECF No. 80, PageID.1084-1085.) The Court therefore GRANTS Defendants’
motion for summary judgment with respect to those claims.

3

Case 4:18-cv-11060-MFL-PTM ECF No. 84, PageID.1107 Filed 01/20/21 Page 4 of 9

Likewise, Defendants have not objected to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion
that they are not entitled to qualified immunity. (See id., PageID.1084.) The Court
will therefore not review that portion of the R&R.
II
Defendants have raised three specific objections to the R&R. The Court has
carefully reviewed the objections and concludes that they are without merit. The
Court addresses each objection in turn below.
A
In Defendants’ first objection, they argue that Defendant Winn is entitled to
dismissal of Williams’ equal protection claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1).
(See Objections, ECF No. 81, PageID.1090-1091.) That statute provides that “[t]he
court shall on its own motion or on the motion of a party dismiss any action 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 if the
court is satisfied that the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1). Defendants assert that Winn is
entitled to dismissal under this provision because “Williams [has] failed to allege
sufficient personal involvement of Defendant Winn” in the decision to bar Williams
from the Dog Program. (Objections, ECF No. 81, PageID.1090.) Defendants

4

Case 4:18-cv-11060-MFL-PTM ECF No. 84, PageID.1108 Filed 01/20/21 Page 5 of 9

therefore insist that Williams “failed to allege sufficient facts” to maintain his claim
against Winn. (Id., PageID.1091.) The Court disagrees.
Williams has both alleged and presented evidence that Winn had personal
involvement in the decision to prohibit Williams from participating in the Dog
Program. For example, in Williams’ Complaint, he alleges that Winn was the
“ultimate decision maker” with respect to Williams’ application to participate in the
Dog Program. (Compl. at ¶10, ECF No. 1, PageID.7.) More importantly, Williams
reinforces that allegation by later alleging that he was told by Clark that “the ultimate
decision” to deny his application “was made way above [her] pay grade by the
Warden” – i.e., by Winn. (Id. at ¶33, PageID.12.) Finally, Williams submitted an
affidavit in response to Defendants’ summary judgment motion in which he averred
that “Clark did tell me that the ultimate decision to deny my application was made
way above her pay grade, by the Warden.” (Williams Aff. at ¶11, ECF No. 64,
PageID.950.)
Defendants may ultimately persuade a jury that Winn had no direct
involvement in the decision to bar Williams from the Dog Program. But at this stage,
the Court is not persuaded that Williams “failed to allege sufficient facts” that could
establish Winn’s personal involvement. (Objections, ECF No. 81, PageID.1091.)
Defendants’ first objection is therefore OVERRULED.

5

Case 4:18-cv-11060-MFL-PTM ECF No. 84, PageID.1109 Filed 01/20/21 Page 6 of 9

B
In Defendants’ second objection, they assert that Williams “cannot meet his
burden” to show that he was qualified to participate in the Dog Program.
(Objections, ECF No. 81, PageID.1092.) Defendants’ argument is that one of the
qualifications for participation in the Dog Program was that a prisoner could not
have been convicted of a crime of domestic violence, and Williams did not meet that
qualification because he “beat[] his girlfriend to death with a hammer.” (Id.)
Defendants’ argument misses the thrust of Williams’ claim. Williams’ theory
in this case is that even if Defendants purport to have had certain qualifications for
participation in the Dog Program, Defendants did not consistently enforce those
qualifications.

In other words, Williams claims that at least some of the

qualifications were illusory, and he has presented evidence that could establish that
Defendants allowed some prisoners into the Dog Program despite not meeting all of
the purported qualifications. Thus, on this record, there is a question of fact as to
what were the actual qualifications for participation in the Dog Program, which
qualifications Defendants enforced, and whether Williams did or did not meet the
qualifications. For all of these reasons, Defendants are not entitled to summary
judgment on the basis that Williams failed to show that he was qualified to
participate in the Dog Program. Defendants’ second objection is therefore
OVERRULED.

6

Case 4:18-cv-11060-MFL-PTM ECF No. 84, PageID.1110 Filed 01/20/21 Page 7 of 9

C
Finally, in Defendants’ third objection, Defendants argue that Williams has
failed to “create[] a question of fact as to whether he was treated differently from
similarly situated white prisoners.” (Objections, ECF No. 81, PageID.1092.)
Defendants say that Williams is not similarly situated to the white prisoners he has
identified because he did not have his admission into the Dog Program decided by
the “same decision maker” as those identified prisoners. (Id.) More specifically,
Defendants assert that Williams’ claim is that “Clark denied his application” while
he says that the other prisoners “were allowed into the program by Winn.” (Id.,
PageID.1093.) And Defendants insist that Williams “did not allege that Winn denied
his application.” (Id.)
But as the Court has explained above, Williams has sufficiently alleged and
provided evidence that Winn was involved in the denial of his application. And if
a jury concludes that Winn had personal involvement in deciding the applications of
both Williams and the other identified inmates, then Williams and those inmates
would have “dealt with the same decision maker.” (Id., PageID.1092.) Defendants’
third objection is therefore OVERRULED.

7

Case 4:18-cv-11060-MFL-PTM ECF No. 84, PageID.1111 Filed 01/20/21 Page 8 of 9

III
For all of the reasons explained above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
 Defendants’ Objections (ECF No. 81) to the R&R are
OVERRULED;
 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 49) is
GRANTED with respect to Williams’ official-capacity claims and
DENIED with respect to Williams’ equal protection claim;
 Williams’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 50) is DENIED;
and
 Williams motion for a default judgment (ECF No. 78) is DENIED.
The only claim that remains in this case for trial is Williams’ claim that
Defendants violated the Equal Protection Clause when they excluded him from the
Dog Program.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: January 20, 2021

8

Case 4:18-cv-11060-MFL-PTM ECF No. 84, PageID.1112 Filed 01/20/21 Page 9 of 9

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on January 20, 2021, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

9