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.

Hailey v. Washington

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

January 9, 2018

JEROME MENDELL HAILEY, Plaintiff,
v.
HEIDI WASHINGTON et al., Defendants.

          OPINION

          Janet T. Neff United States District Judge

         This is 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 against all Defendants for failure to state a claim.

         Discussion

         I. Factual allegations

         Plaintiff is presently incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) at the Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility (MTU) in Ionia, Michigan. The events about which he complains occurred at that facility. Plaintiff sues Defendants MDOC Director Heidi Washington; MDOC Administrative Grievance Coordinator Richard Russell; MTU Warden DeWayne Burton; MTU Inspector Unknown Blackmon; MTU Grievance Coordinator N. Lake; MTU Assistant Resident Unit Supervisor Unknown Wenglikowski; MTU Lieutenant Unknown Jones; MTU Sergeants Unknown Whitiniger and Unknown Moore; MTU Corrections Officers Unknown Crawford and Unknown Smith; MTU CPC Unknown Heard, and MTU Qualified Mental Health Provider Doctor Unknown Cieply.

         Plaintiff alleges that throughout the month of February, 2018, while assigned to a work detail, Plaintiff suffered constant harassment by Defendant Crawford in violation of MDOC policy requiring that prisoners be treated in a dignified and humane manner, and the state and federal constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishments. Plaintiff does not describe the nature of the harassment.

         Plaintiff complained to Defendant Burton. Defendant Burton did not respond.

         Plaintiff filed a Prison Rape Elimination Act grievance against Defendant Smith on May 28, 2017. Plaintiff does not describe the conduct that prompted his filing of the grievance. Plaintiff received no response until he contacted the sexual abuse hotline. Then, he was interviewed by Defendant Blackmon.

         On an unknown date, Plaintiff cut his wrist due to the harassment, pressure, and degradation caused by Defendants Crawford and Smith. Plaintiff does not describe or explain the harassment, pressure, or degradation. He was charged $562.00 for treatment of the self-inflicted injury. On June 10, 2017, he filed a formal complaint.

         Defendant Wenglikowski served as hearings officer, presumably on Plaintiff's formal complaint regarding the charges for the self-inflicted injury. Plaintiff claims Defendant Wenglikowski deprived Plaintiff of his equal protection and due process rights. Plaintiff does not explain how Defendant Wenglikowski violated Plaintiff's equal protection or due process rights. He simply notes that Defendant Wenglikowski served a dual function: as Assistant Residential Unit Supervisor and as hearings officer.

         On June 12, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant Burton for failing to adhere to administrative rules.

         On June 29, 2017, Plaintiff filed a step I grievance “to” Defendant N. Lake regarding Plaintiff's being prevented from exhausting his administrative remedies.

         On August 3, 2017, Plaintiff received a mail notice that the facility had received a federal litigation manual ordered on Plaintiff's behalf. The book was stolen prior to being delivered. Plaintiff does not identify the thief, nor does he attribute the loss to any particular Defendant.

         On August 7, 2017, Plaintiff started to notice that he was being subjected to acts of reprisal. Defendant Crawford allegedly retaliated against Plaintiff for Plaintiff's submission of a grievance against Trinity staff members. Plaintiff does not explain the nature of the reprisals or describe the acts of retaliation.

         On September 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed a formal complaint that on August 31, 2017, Defendant Crawford made threats towards Plaintiff claiming that Crawford would have Plaintiff placed in segregation.

         On September 28, 2017, Plaintiff submitted a direct grievance with the Inspector's Office regarding the retaliatory actions of Defendants Crawford and Smith. Again, Plaintiff does not describe the retaliatory acts.

         On October 13, 2017, Defendants Crawford and Smith “collectively” issued a Class II Misconduct charge against Plaintiff. Plaintiff was ultimately found not guilty a week later. Plaintiff does not explain the nature of the alleged misconduct or indicate that the charge was knowingly false.

         On October 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Inspector's Office regarding Defendant Lake's failure to forward a step II grievance form.

         On October 30, 2017, Plaintiff was sexually harassed by Defendant Smith while Plaintiff was in Health Services. Plaintiff states that this was a pattern and practice. The Mental Health psychologist switched Plaintiff's medication line time to reduce interactions between Plaintiff and Smith. Plaintiff does not describe the nature of the sexual harassment.

         Supervisory officer Defendant Whitiniger observed “said” abuse but turned a blind eye. Plaintiff does not describe the abuse. Defendant Whitiniger threatened to have Plaintiff placed in segregation.

         Sergeant Moore was a biased reviewer of Plaintiff's grievance against Defendant Whitiniger, violating ...


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.