Massey v. Pemberton et al

Filing 17

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 11 Motion for Relief from Judgment and for Leave to Amend. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

SHARIEFF MASSEY,
Case Number: 2:13-CV-14222

Plaintiff,

HON. JOHN CORBETT O’MEARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

v.
D. PEMBERTON, ET AL.,
Defendants.
/

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO AMEND COMPLAINT
AND DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
Plaintiff Sharieff Massey filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging that he was denied due process during a prison misconduct proceeding stemming
from an incident at the Charles Egeler Reception and Guidance Center in Jackson, Michigan.
Plaintiff named five defendants, all employees of the Michigan Department of Corrections.
On February 6, 2014, this Court issued an opinion and order summarily dismissing the
complaint because Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment.
The Court dismissed the complaint because Plaintiff challenged a prison misconduct
proceeding, but failed to show the conviction implicated any liberty interest. See Wolff v.
McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). Moreover, he failed to allege an “atypical and significant”
hardship implicating a protected liberty interest. See Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995).

The Court further found that, to the extent that Plaintiff claimed a violation of his
constitutional rights because the misconduct violation limits his eligibility for certain prison
jobs, this claim was meritless because a prisoner has no constitutionally protected right to a
prison job or a particular prison wage. See Newsom v. Norris, 888 F.2d 371, 374 (6th Cir.
1989).
Plaintiff seeks relief from judgment on the ground that he would like to amend his
complaint to add additional information and supporting documentation which would, he
argues, would cure any deficiencies in his complaint. The Court will grant Plaintiff’s request
to amend the complaint and consider the documents as filed and as part of the complaint. See
Brown v. Matauszak, 415 F. App’x 608, 2011 WL 285251 (6th Cir. 2011) (finding that the
district court abused its discretion in not granting an amendment where the prisoner clearly
submitted documentation indicating that information did exist that would cure the defect in
the prisoner’s complaint).
Even considering these documents, however, along with the allegations in Plaintiff’s
motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff merely presents issues already ruled upon by the Court.
None of the arguments or supporting documents allege a claim under § 1983. The complaint
still suffers from the same deficiencies identified in the Court’s order of dismissal. Plaintiff
fails to allege facts showing unconstitutional conduct. Nothing in the motion justifies relief.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s
Motion for Relief from Judgment and for Leave to Amend Complaint (dkt. # 11). The Court

2

grants Plaintiff’s request to amend the complaint and denies the motion for relief from
judgment.
SO ORDERED.
s/John Corbett O’Meara
United States District Judge

Date: September 11, 2014

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of
record on this date, September 11, 2014, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz
Case Manager

3