Johnson #324642 v. Beak et al
Filing
157
OPINION and ORDER ; signed by Judge R. Allan Edgar (Judge R. Allan Edgar, cmb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
CORIELLE JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 2:12-CV-205
HON. R. ALLAN EDGAR
LESLIE BEAK, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
OPINION & ORDER
Plaintiff Corielle Johnson, an inmate currently confined by the Michigan
Department of Corrections (MDOC), filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights. ECF No. 1. Presently before this Court is
Defendant Betts’ motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 151.
The following are the events involving Defendant Betts viewed in the light most
favorable to Plaintiff. Muhammad v. Close, 379 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing Adams v.
Metiva, 31 F.3d 375, 382 (6th Cir. 1994) (noting any direct evidence offered by Plaintiff in
response to a summary judgment motion are accepted as true)). On October 13, 2011, Defendant
Betts wrote tickets on Plaintiff and two other inmates, but waited over twenty hours to type the
misconduct reports and failed to sign the tickets. PageID.9. On October 14, 2011, Plaintiff told
the Warden that he believed these tickets were falsified because Defendant Betts was not in
Plaintiff’s housing unit on the date of the alleged misconducts. PageID.9. On October 19, 2011,
the hearing investigator told Plaintiff that the tickets had been rescinded. PageID.9. Shortly
thereafter, Plaintiff heard Defendant Betts complaining about him writing a kite to the Warden.
PageID.9-10. Plaintiff then told Defendant Betts that he did not think she wrote the ticket.
PageID.10. Defendant Betts replied, “whatever, everyone knows your M.O. and we[’]re going to
show you about your kites Johnson.” PageID.10. On October 20, 2011, Defendant Betts falsified
another misconduct on Plaintiff. PageID.10.
Based on the abovementioned allegations, the Court has interpreted Plaintiff’s
Complaint as asserting the following claim against Defendant Betts:
Defendant Betts violated Plaintiff’s First Amendment right to be free
from retaliation when she falsified a misconduct ticket against him
due to Plaintiff’s kite filing practices.
See PageID.9-10. Defendant Betts filed this motion for summary judgment on February 29,
2016. ECF No. 151. On March 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment. ECF No. 155. Defendant Betts did not file a reply. The matter is now ready
for a decision.
I.
Summary judgment is appropriate only if the moving party establishes that there is
no genuine issue of material fact for trial and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-323 (1986). If the movant
carries the burden of showing there is an absence of evidence to support a claim or defense, then
the party opposing the motion must demonstrate by affidavits, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial.
Celotex Corp, 477 U.S. at 324-25. The nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings but must
present “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. at 324 (quoting Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(e)). The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986). Thus, any direct evidence offered
by the plaintiff in response to a summary judgment motion must be accepted as true.
-2-
Muhammad, 379 F.3d at 416 (citing Adams, 31 F.3d at 382). However, a mere scintilla of
evidence in support of the nonmovant’s position will be insufficient. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 25152. “When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by
the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court could not adopt that version of the
facts for the purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S.
372, 380 (2007). Ultimately, the court must determine whether there is sufficient “evidence on
which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252; see also
Leahy v. Trans Jones, Inc., 996 F.2d 136, 139 (6th Cir. 1993) (single affidavit, in presence of
other evidence to the contrary, failed to present genuine issue of fact); cf. Moore, Owen, Thomas
& Co. v. Coffey, 992 F.2d 1439, 1448 (6th Cir. 1993) (single affidavit concerning state of mind
created factual issue).
II.
Plaintiff’s only claim against Defendant Betts is that Defendant Betts violated his
First Amendment right to be free from retaliation. PageID.9-10, 13. In general, retaliation based
upon a prisoner’s exercise of his or her constitutional rights violates the Constitution. See
Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378, 394 (6th Cir. 1999) (en banc). In order to set forth a First
Amendment retaliation claim, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) he was engaged in protected
conduct; (2) an adverse action was taken against him that would deter a person of ordinary
firmness from engaging in that conduct; and (3) the adverse action was motivated, at least in part,
by the protected conduct. Id. Moreover, a plaintiff must be able to prove that the exercise of the
protected right was a substantial or motivating factor in the defendant’s alleged retaliatory
conduct. See Smith v. Campbell, 250 F.3d 1032, 1037 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Mount Healthy City
-3-
Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287 (1977)).
Notably, however, where the plaintiff is ultimately found guilty of the misconduct
charges, the plaintiff cannot state a claim for retaliation arising from the misconduct charges. See
Jackson v. Madery, 158 Fed. App’x 656, 662 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting Henderson v. Baird, 29
F.3d 464, 469 (8th Cir. 1994) (“A finding of guilt based upon some evidence of a violation of
prison rules ‘essentially checkmates [a] retaliation claim.”); see also Briggs v. Burke, No. 1:13CV-1160, 2015 WL 5714520, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 29, 2015); Thompson v. Moran, No. 1:13CV-499, 2015 WL 752149, at **1, 4 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 23, 2015) (“Where a prisoner alleges that
prison personnel retaliated against him by filing a false misconduct violation, [a] finding of guilt
based upon some evidence of a violation of prison rules essentially checkmates [a] retaliation
claim.”) (citations and quotations omitted).
Here, Defendant Betts included a copy of the hearing report that was generated in
response to the October 20, 2011, misconduct ticket she wrote against Plaintiff. PageID.11891190. The report indicates that Plaintiff was found guilty of the misconduct ticket that Defendant
Betts wrote against him on October 20, 2011. PageID.1189-1190. As a result, Plaintiff’s claim
for retaliation arising from this misconduct ticket fails, as he was found guilty of this misconduct.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s only claim against Defendant Betts is DENIED, and Defendant Betts’
motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
III.
Overall, even when looking at the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, he
has failed to establish that Defendant violated his constitutional rights. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; see
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)
-4-
(stating that pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than pleadings drafted by
attorneys, and will only be dismissed if the claim undoubtedly contains no facts to support its
request for relief). Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is appropriate. ECF
No. 151.
In light of the foregoing, this Court concludes that Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 151) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Betts is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. An Order and Judgment consistent with this Opinion will
be entered.
SO ORDERED.
Date:_5/16/2016__
___/s/ R. Allan Edgar________________________
HON. R. ALLAN EDGAR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-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?