United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
HOLMES BELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
is presently incarcerated in the Baraga Correctional Facility
in Baraga, Michigan. The incidents he describes in the
complaint, however, occurred while he was incarcerated in the
Michigan Reformatory in Ionia, Michigan. On July 4 2015,
Plaintiff was placed in temporary segregation at the
direction of Defendant Lieutenant G. Whitinger. He was
released four days later.
complains that Defendant Whitinger placed him in segregation
without notice or justification on July 4, 2015.
filed a grievance (ECF No. 1, PageID.12), claiming: (1)
Defendant Whitinger accused Plaintiff of receiving drugs and
delivering them to Plaintiff's nephew; (2) Plaintiff
claimed he knew nothing about it; and (3) Defendant Whitinger
placed him in segregation. On July 10, 2015, Defendant Deputy
Warden S. Schooley reviewed the response to Plaintiff's
grievance. (Id.) He rejected the grievance noting
that Plaintiff was placed into temporary segregation in
accordance with Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC)
Policy Directive 04.05.120 ¶J. (Id., PageID.10,
12-13.) Plaintiff contends that Defendant Schooley did not
properly investigate his grievance as required by MDOC Policy
Directive 03.02.130 ¶X.
Defendant Schooley reviewed the response, it was Defendant
Grievance Coordinator K. Miller who actually responded.
(Id., PageID.11-13.) Accordingly, Plaintiff contends
Defendant Miller also failed to comply with MDOC policy
directives and the law when he responded to Plaintiff's
Plaintiff appealed the step I grievance response. (ECF No. 1,
PageID.15-17.) His appeal asserted that the real reason
Defendants Miller and Schooley rejected his grievance is that
they were covering for Defendant Whitinger's improper
placement of Plaintiff in segregation.
Warden Carmen Palmer responded to the appeal on July 30,
2015. (Id., PageID.16-17.) Defendant Palmer stated
that she found no impropriety or violation of policy.
(Id. PageID.17.) Plaintiff contends that Defendant
Palmer failed to adequately investigate his grievance appeal.