Sturgis #566328 v. Suardini et al
Filing
8
OPINION ; signed by Judge R. Allan Edgar (Judge R. Allan Edgar, cam)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
DONALD STURGIS,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:16-cv-61
v.
Honorable R. Allan Edgar
UNKNOWN SUARDINI, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
OPINION
This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The Court has granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Under the Prison Litigation
Reform Act, PUB. L. NO. 104-134, 110 STAT. 1321 (1996), the Court is required to dismiss any
prisoner action brought under federal law if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such
relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). The Court must read Plaintiff’s pro
se complaint indulgently, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and accept Plaintiff’s
allegations as true, unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504
U.S. 25, 33 (1992). Applying these standards, Plaintiff’s action will be dismissed for failure to state
a claim.
Factual Allegations
Plaintiff Donald Sturgis, a state prisoner currently confined at the Alger Correctional
Facility (LMF), filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants
Corrections Officer Unknown Suardini, Sergeant Unknown Zellar, Warden Catherine S. Bauman,
Deputy Warden Unknown Immel, Hearing Investigator L. Maki, Unknown Party Internal Affairs
Director, Unit 8 P.C. Unknown Hubble, and Attorney Rhonda B. Ives. In Plaintiff’s complaint, he
alleges that on November 30, 2015, he was subjected to false allegations and fabricated evidence,
which resulted in a false misconduct charge for the possession of a weapon.
Plaintiff claims that in his earlier habeas corpus action in the Eastern District of
Michigan, he presented evidence showing that his former girlfriend Defendant Ives committed
perjury during Plaintiff’s criminal trial. Plaintiff alleges that during the course of their relationship,
Defendant Ives had told him that there were MDOC officials who owed her money, but that was
“ok” because she could “get favors” from the prison officials. Plaintiff asserts that in retaliation for
his claims against Defendant Ives during his habeas corpus action, Defendant Ives had prison
officials set him up on a false possession of weapons charge. Consequently, Plaintiff was placed in
segregation.
Plaintiff alleges that the false evidence used in the possession of a weapons charge
was provided by Defendants Suardini and Zellar at the behest of Defendant Ives. Plaintiff contends
that Defendants Bauman, Immel, Maki, and Unknown Party Internal Affairs Director failed to
properly investigate the charges. Finally, Plaintiff claims that Defendant Hubble failed to properly
supervise Defendants Suardini and Zellar. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief.
-2-
Discussion
I.
Failure to state a claim
A complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it fails “‘to give the
defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atl. Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). While
a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s allegations must include more
than labels and conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,
do not suffice.”). The court must determine whether the complaint contains “enough facts to state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Although
the plausibility standard is not equivalent to a “‘probability requirement,’ . . . it asks for more than
a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 556). “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the
mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged – but it has not ‘show[n]’ – that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2)); see also Hill
v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010) (holding that the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility
standard applies to dismissals of prisoner cases on initial review under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1)
and 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right
secured by the federal Constitution or laws and must show that the deprivation was committed by
-3-
a person acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Dominguez v. Corr.
Med. Servs., 555 F.3d 543, 549 (6th Cir. 2009). Because § 1983 is a method for vindicating federal
rights, not a source of substantive rights itself, the first step in an action under § 1983 is to identify
the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994).
Initially, the court notes that Plaintiff fails to make specific factual allegations against
Defendants Bauman, Immel, and Unknown Party Internal Affairs Director, other than his claim that
they failed to conduct an investigation in response to his complaints. In addition, Plaintiff’s only
claim against Defendant Hubble is that she failed to properly supervise Defendants Suardini and
Zellar. Government officials may not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their
subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior or vicarious liability. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676;
Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691(1978); Everson v. Leis, 556 F.3d
484, 495 (6th Cir. 2009).
A claimed constitutional violation must be based upon active
unconstitutional behavior. Grinter v. Knight, 532 F.3d 567, 575-76 (6th Cir. 2008); Greene v.
Barber, 310 F.3d 889, 899 (6th Cir. 2002). The acts of one’s subordinates are not enough, nor can
supervisory liability be based upon the mere failure to act. Grinter, 532 F.3d at 576; Greene, 310
F.3d at 899; Summers v. Leis, 368 F.3d 881, 888 (6th Cir. 2004). Moreover, § 1983 liability may
not be imposed simply because a supervisor denied an administrative grievance or failed to act based
upon information contained in a grievance. See Shehee v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295, 300 (6th Cir.
1999). “[A] plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own
individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676. Plaintiff has failed to
allege that Defendants Hubble, Bauman, Immel, and Unknown Party Internal Affairs Director
engaged in any active unconstitutional behavior. Accordingly, he fails to state a claim against them.
-4-
In addition, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Ives must be dismissed because she
is not a state actor for purposes of this action. In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a
plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the federal Constitution or laws and must
show that the deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Dominguez v. Corr. Med. Servs., 555 F.3d 543, 549 (6th Cir. 2009); Street
v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 102 F.3d 810, 814 (6th Cir. 1996). In order for a private party’s conduct to
be under color of state law, it must be “fairly attributable to the State.” Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co.,
457 U.S. 922, 937 (1982); Street, 102 F.3d at 814. There must be “a sufficiently close nexus
between the State and the challenged action of [the defendant] so that the action of the latter may be
fairly treated as that of the State itself.” Skelton v. Pri-Cor, Inc., 963 F.2d 100, 102 (6th Cir. 1991)
(citing Jackson v. Metro. Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 351 (1974)). Plaintiff has not presented any
allegations by which the inmate’s conduct could be fairly attributed to the State. Accordingly, he
fails to state a § 1983 claim against Defendant Ives.
Plaintiff claims that Defendants Suardini and Zellar violated his due process rights
when they falsified evidence against him, and that Defendant Maki violated his due process rights
by failing to properly investigate the weapons charge. A prisoner’s ability to challenge a prison
misconduct conviction depends on whether the convictions implicated any liberty interest. In the
seminal case in this area, Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), the Court prescribed certain
minimal procedural safeguards that prison officials must follow before depriving a prisoner of goodtime credits on account of alleged misbehavior. The Wolff Court did not create a free-floating right
to process that attaches to all prison disciplinary proceedings; rather the right to process arises only
-5-
when the prisoner faces a loss of liberty, in the form of a longer prison sentence caused by forfeiture
of good-time credits:
It is true that the Constitution itself does not guarantee good-time
credit for satisfactory behavior while in prison. But here the State
itself has not only provided a statutory right to good time but also
specifies that it is to be forfeited only for serious misbehavior.
Nebraska may have the authority to create, or not, a right to a
shortened prison sentence through the accumulation of credits for
good behavior, and it is true that the Due Process Clause does not
require a hearing “in every conceivable case of government
impairment of private interest.” But the State having created the right
to good time and itself recognizing that its deprivation is a sanction
authorized for major misconduct, the prisoner’s interest has real
substance and is sufficiently embraced within Fourteenth Amendment
“liberty” to entitle him to those minimum procedures appropriate
under the circumstances and required by the Due Process Clause to
insure that the state-created right is not arbitrarily abrogated.
Wolff, 418 U.S. at 557 (citations omitted).
Plaintiff does not allege that his major misconduct convictions resulted in any loss
of good-time credits, nor could he. The Sixth Circuit has examined Michigan statutory law, as it
relates to the creation and forfeiture of disciplinary credits1 for prisoners convicted of crimes
occurring after April 1, 1987. In Thomas v. Eby, 481 F.3d 434 (6th Cir. 2007), the court determined
that loss of disciplinary credits does not necessarily affect the duration of a prisoner’s sentence.
Rather, it merely affects parole eligibility, which remains discretionary with the parole board. Id.
at 440. Building on this ruling, in Nali v. Ekman, 355 F. App’x 909 (6th Cir. 2009), the court held
that a misconduct citation in the Michigan prison system does not affect a prisoner’s constitutionally
protected liberty interests, because it does not necessarily affect the length of confinement. 355 F.
1
For crimes committed after April 1, 1987, Michigan prisoners earn “disciplinary credits” under a statute that abolished
the former good-time system. MICH. COMP. LAWS § 800.33(5).
-6-
App’x at 912; accord, Taylor v. Lantagne, 418 F. App’x 408, 412 (6th Cir. 2011); Wilson v.
Rapelje, No. 09-13030, 2010 WL 5491196, at * 4 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 24, 2010) (Report &
Recommendation) (holding that “plaintiff’s disciplinary hearing and major misconduct sanction does
not implicate the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause”), adopted as judgment of court, 2011
WL 5491196 (Jan. 4, 2011). In the absence of a demonstrated liberty interest, Plaintiff has no dueprocess claim based on the loss of disciplinary credits. See Bell v. Anderson, 301 F. App’x 459, 46162 (6th Cir. 2008).
Even in the absence of a protectible liberty interest in disciplinary credits, a prisoner
may be able to raise a due-process challenge to prison misconduct convictions that result in a
significant, atypical deprivation. See Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). However, Plaintiff
has not identified any significant deprivation arising from his convictions. To determine whether
segregation of an inmate from the general prison population involves the deprivation of a liberty
interest protected by the due process clause, the Court must determine if the segregation imposes an
“atypical and significant” hardship on the inmate “in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.”
Jones v. Baker, 155 F.3d 810, 811 (6th Cir. 1998) (quoting Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483
(1995)). Under various circumstances, the Sixth Circuit has repeatedly found that confinement to
administrative segregation does not present an “atypical and significant” hardship implicating a
protected liberty interest. See Jones, 155 F.3d at 812-23 (two years of segregation while inmate was
investigated for murder of prison guard in riot); Rimmer-Bey v. Brown, 62 F.3d 789, 790-91 (6th Cir.
1995) (inmate serving life sentence was placed in segregation after serving thirty days of detention
for misconduct conviction of conspiracy to commit assault and battery); Mackey v. Dyke, 111 F.3d
460 (6th Cir.1997) (one year of segregation after inmate was found guilty of possession of illegal
-7-
contraband and assault and where reclassification was delayed due to prison crowding). Although
Plaintiff appears to be claiming that his placement in segregation has been “atypical and significant,”
the only allegation he presents regarding his segregation is that its duration has been for 90 days.
The length of the placement is not determinative. See Jones, 155 F.3d at 812. Plaintiff has failed
to make any allegations which would show that his segregation is “atypical and significant.”
Consequently, the court concludes that no liberty interest is implicated by his placement. Therefore,
Plaintiff’s due process claims are properly dismissed.
Finally, Plaintiff claims that Defendants Suardini and Zellar acted in retaliation for
Plaintiff’s statements regarding Defendant Ives in a prior habeas corpus action. 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 Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ.
v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287 (1977)).
Plaintiff’s retaliation claims lack merit. A prisoner’s claim that he was falsely
accused of a major misconduct is barred where there has been a finding of guilt. See Peterson v.
Johnson, 714 F.3d 905, 917 (6th Cir. 2013) (holding that a factual finding in a major misconduct
proceeding has preclusive effect and is not subject to challenge in a § 1983 action). Moreover,
-8-
Plaintiff fails to allege any facts showing that Defendants Suardini and Zellar were motivated by a
desire to retaliate against Plaintiff on behalf of Defendant Ives. In fact, there is no indication that
Defendants Suardini and Zellar, who were employed at LMF in Munising, Michigan during the
pertinent time period, were even acquainted with Defendant Ives, who resides in downstate
Coldwater, Michigan. Therefore, Plaintiff’s retaliation claims are properly dismissed.
Conclusion
Having conducted the review required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Court
determines that Plaintiff’s action will be dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c).
The Court must next decide whether an appeal of this action would be in good faith
within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 611
(6th Cir. 1997). For the same reasons that the Court dismisses the action, the Court discerns no
good-faith basis for an appeal. Should Plaintiff appeal this decision, the Court will assess the
$505.00 appellate filing fee pursuant to § 1915(b)(1), see McGore, 114 F.3d at 610-11, unless
Plaintiff is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis, e.g., by the “three-strikes” rule of § 1915(g).
If he is barred, he will be required to pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee in one lump sum.
This is a dismissal as described by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
A Judgment consistent with this Opinion will be entered.
Dated: 5/2/2016
/s/ R. Allan Edgar
R. ALLAN EDGAR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?