United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Northern Division
J. QUIST, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act,
Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (PLRA), 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, the Court will dismiss
Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim.
is presently incarcerated with the Michigan Department of
Corrections (MDOC) at Earnest C. Brooks Correctional
Facility, (LRF) in Muskegon Heights, Muskegon County,
Michigan. The events about which he complains occurred at the
Kinross Correctional Facility (KCF) in Kincheloe, Chippewa
County, Michigan. Plaintiff sues Classification Director D.
Bestemen, Corrections Officer Unknown Nault, and Unknown
Party named as Deputy Warden Sergeant John Doe.
alleges that he was transferred to KCF on January 31, 2017.
On February 15, 2017, Defendant Bestemen called Plaintiff out
for his initial classification. During the meeting, Defendant
Bestemen told Plaintiff that he must pick between a porter
job and yard crew detail, and then two jobs of his choice.
Plaintiff told Defendant Bestemen that he wanted food
service, health care porter, or general porter. Defendant
Bestemen told Plaintiff that he could not have the jobs of
his choice because he had an issue with over familiarity.
Plaintiff filed a grievance on Defendant Bestemen and
indicated in the body of the grievance that he would be suing
Defendant Bestemen. Plaintiff's step I grievance and his
step II appeal were both denied. Plaintiff's step III
appeal was pending at the time that Plaintiff filed his
complaint in this Court.
April 1, 2017, Plaintiff was placed on yard crew detail. On
April 11, 2017, Corrections Officer Miller presented
Plaintiff with a reclassification form and asked Plaintiff to
sign it. However, Plaintiff told Miller that he did not agree
with the information on the form and refused to sign it.
Plaintiff also told Miller that he had legal matters pending
against Defendant Bestemen and Miller said, “no
problem.” On April 12, 2017, Plaintiff received notice
that he was to see Defendant Bestemen for reclassification.
While Plaintiff was in the waiting area, he asked an unknown
corrections officer to be present during the
reclassification, but the officer refused. Defendant Bestemen
appeared and Plaintiff told him that he did not understand
why he was being reclassified. Plaintiff expressed concern
over being in Defendant Bestemen's office alone and
Defendant Bestemen became angry. Defendant Bestemen yelled
that Plaintiff should go into his office or leave. Plaintiff
stated that he was afraid of going into the office because of
Defendant Bestemen's anger. Plaintiff left the area
Plaintiff arrived at the housing unit, Corrections Officer
Nault told him that Defendant Bestemen had called and wanted
Plaintiff back in the programs building. Plaintiff told
Defendant Nault what had just happened. Defendant Nault
stated that if Plaintiff did not go, he would have Defendant
Bestemen give Plaintiff a direct order to go to the programs
building, so Plaintiff complied. When Plaintiff arrived back
in the programs building, Defendant Bestemen asked for his ID
card and stated that he was writing two misconduct tickets on
Plaintiff, one for disobeying a direct order, and the second
for being out of place. When Plaintiff protested and tried to
explain that he was afraid to go into Defendant
Bestemen's office, Defendant Bestemen told Plaintiff to
leave immediately, and stated that Plaintiff would be back on
callout the next day.
April 13, 2017, Plaintiff was reviewed on the misconduct
tickets by Defendant Unknown Party. Plaintiff explained the
situation and asked Defendant Unknown Party if he would
intervene on Plaintiff's behalf because Defendant
Bestemen had promised more misconduct tickets in an attempt
to send Plaintiff to level IV. Defendant Unknown Party
ordered Plaintiff to leave the control center. Plaintiff then
went to the programs building, where Defendant Bestemen
ordered Plaintiff to go into his office to discuss his
reclassification. Plaintiff expressed fear of going into the
office, but Defendant Bestemen told him if he did not, he
would continue to receive misconduct tickets. Defendant
Bestemen stated that he was not going to do anything to
Plaintiff in his office, but if he could get away with it, he
would take Plaintiff into the woods and blow his head off.
Plaintiff then returned to his housing unit and Defendant
Bestemen wrote Plaintiff a misconduct for disobeying a direct
order. Plaintiff was found guilty of all three misconduct
called his mother and asked her to file a police report on
Defendant Bestemen. The state police told Plaintiff's
mother to call the inspector of the facility, but said that
they would turn the allegations over to a detective.
Plaintiff states that the misconduct tickets that Defendant
Bestemen has written and threatens to write will subject
Plaintiff to a higher security level. Plaintiff also claims
that Defendants Unknown Party and Nault worked in concert to
encourage Defendant Bestemen's conduct.
seeks a “temporary restraining order requiring Bestemen
and his supporting cast to refrain from putting [Plaintiff]
on duplicate callouts only to write [Plaintiff] misconducts
knowing [Plaintiff is] fearful of physical harm in an attempt
to increase [Plaintiff's] security level.”
Failure to state a claim
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)).
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); Street
v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 102 F.3d 810, 814 (6th Cir.
1996). Because § 1983 is a method for vindicating
federal rights, not a source of substantive rights itself,
the first step in an action ...