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 8, 2015,
Plaintiff was released from segregation. 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.
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.)
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.
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
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.
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.