Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Stein v. Skipper

United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division

October 26, 2016

RICHARD DEAN STEIN, Plaintiff,
v.
G. SKIPPER et al., Defendants.

          OPINION

          ROBERT HOLMES BELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         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 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 8, 2015, Plaintiff was released from segregation.[1] Previously, he had been housed in Unit I-2 and he had been working as an outside unit porter. When he was released, he was moved to Unit I-3. He was told he could not keep his job.

         Claim 1-Defendant Skipper

         Plaintiff filed a grievance (ECF No. 1, PageID.10), claiming he should not have lost his job. On July 20, 2015, Defendant Deputy Warden G. Skipper responded to Plaintiff's grievance. (Id., PageID.11.) He informed Plaintiff that Plaintiff was moved off Unit I-2 to segregation due to his alleged involvement in drug smuggling. (Id.) Defendant Skipper noted that two tickets were written on Plaintiff as he was being placed in segregation. (Id.) Defendant Skipper reported that Plaintiff had received tickets for substance abuse and contraband while he was on his job assignment and that he would not be placed back in his job assignment; even though he would be moved back to I-2. (Id.)

         Plaintiff contends that Defendant Skipper is not telling the truth and falsified documents. He claims that he was never given notice that he lost his job and that the staff is corrupt. Plaintiff has filed suit against Defendant Skipper for his unsatisfactory response to Plaintiff's grievance.

         Claim 2-Defendant Schooley

         Defendant Skipper's response to the grievance was reviewed and approved by Defendant Deputy Warden S. Schooley on July 13, 2015. (Id.) Accordingly, Plaintiff makes the same allegations against Defendant Schooley that he makes against Defendant Skipper. He has filed suit against Defendant Schooley for his unsatisfactory response to Plaintiff's grievance.

         Claim 3-Defendant Palmer

         Plaintiff appealed the step I grievance response. (ECF No. 1, PageID.14.) His appeal asserted that the reasons stated for the loss of his job were untrue. Defendant Warden Carmen Palmer responded to the appeal on September 9, 2015. (ECF No. 1, PageID.15.) Defendant Palmer stated that she found no impropriety on the part of staff and that Plaintiff was, at that time, housed in Unit I-4. According to Defendant Palmer, job assignments simply do not continue once a prisoner is moved to a different housing unit. Plaintiff has filed suit against Defendant Palmer for her unsatisfactory response to his grievance appeal.

         Claim 4-Defendant Marshall

         As Plaintiff's grievance was working its way through the system, he sought an answer to the question “Why did I lose my job?” from other staff. He posed that question in a kite to Defendant Classification Director Nancy Marshall. (ECF No. 1, PageID.24.) She responded that jobs do not move unit to unit and Plaintiff had moved from Unit I-2 to Unit I-3 and was, at the time she responded, on Unit I-4. (Id.) Plaintiff has filed suit against Defendant Marshall for her unsatisfactory response to his kite.

         Claim ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.