United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 76] GRANTING IN
PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND
[DOC. 58] GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC. 65] AND
GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION DIRECTING SERVICE ON
DEFENDANT GUILKIE [DOC. 95]
CARAM STEEH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Edward Burley alleges that he suffers from hearing impairment
and that defendants have failed to provide him with
accommodations for his disability. Plaintiff seeks access to
interpreters, videophones, amplifiers, hearing aids and other
audio-audio-visual equipment which would permit him to more
fully participate in academic classes, training, medical
care, disciplinary hearings, religious ceremonies, and family
visits. Plaintiff further asserts that the lack of such
accommodations have placed him at risk in case of an
emergency, whereby warnings are conveyed using audio cues.
Burley alleges that defendants have denied him his rights
under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and have violated
the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and
the Rehabilitation Act.
seeks monetary damages in the amount of $100 per day that his
rights have been violated, and $1, 000, 000 in punitive
damages. He seeks an injunction requiring defendants to
provide adequate services and facilities for deaf inmates. He
also seeks a declaration that defendants violated various
statutes and Constitutional provisions and an award of
filed his complaint against the Michigan Department of
Corrections (“MDOC”), Daniel Heyns, Heidi
Washington, Thomas Finco, Joanne Bridgford, Blaine Lafler,
Willie Smith, Cathleen Stoddard, John Prelesnik, Patrick
Trieweiler, Thomas Birkett, Randall Haas, Jeffrey Woods,
Michelle Pelon, Jacque Koenigskencht, George Stephenson,
Joseph Knickerbocker, Russell Klatt, James Verbonconer,
Stephen Moore, and Jane and John Doe (“state
defendants”), and defendants Sherry, Roger Gerlack, and
Scott Holmes (‘the non-state defendants”).
non-state defendants, along with the named but unserved
defendants, Quiroga and Williamson, have not filed a
dispositive motion and have not joined in the state
defendants' motion for summary judgment.
matter is presently before the court on Magistrate Judge
Morris' report and recommendation addressing
plaintiff's motion to amend and the state defendants'
motion for summary judgment. Objections to the report and
recommendation have been filed within the established time
period. The court has reviewed the file, record, and
magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
Motion to Amend [Doc. # 58]
30, 2016, Burley filed a proposed amended complaint seeking
to add allegations against Assistant Resident Unit Supervisor
(“ARUS”) Yall, Edward Hunt, Warden Thomas
Birkett, Resident Unit Manager (“RUM”) Guilkie,
ARUS Snyder, Special Accommodation Coordinator Foy, Dr. Czop,
Rhonda Rider, ARUS Daniels, ARUS Bradley, and Holtz for
violating his rights by denying him certain accommodations.
The Magistrate Judge concludes that plaintiff failed to
exhaust his grievances through the administrative grievance
process as to all of the defendants he seeks to add in his
motion to amend, except for defendant Guilkie. Therefore, the
Magistrate Judge Judge recommends that Burley's motion to
amend should be denied as futile as to all proposed
defendants except for Guilkie.
exhaustion issue is also relevant to defendant's motion
for summary judgment and is discussed in more detail below.
Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. #65]
August 5, 2016, the state defendants filed a motion for
summary judgment. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the
motion be granted as to most of the state defendants and
denied as to defendants Klatt and Guilkie.
complaint can state a viable claim if he properly exhausted
the relevant grievance within the last three years.
Grievances are defendant-specific and issue-specific. The
Magistrate Magistrate Judge determined that Burley properly
exhausted a total of six hearing-impairment related
grievances through step III of the grievance process that are
ripe for determination. Of those six grievances, only three
reference any defendant discussed in Burley's complaint
or amended complaint. Grievance 0059-07a references defendant
Klatt; grievance 0108-12i references defendant Holmes and the
MDOC; and grievance 3775-23z references defendants Stoddard