United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
T. Neff 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 against all Defendants for failure
to state a claim.
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.
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.
complained to Defendant Burton. Defendant Burton did not
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
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.
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.
12, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant
Burton for failing to adhere to administrative rules.
29, 2017, Plaintiff filed a step I grievance “to”
Defendant N. Lake regarding Plaintiff's being prevented
from exhausting his administrative remedies.
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.
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
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
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.
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
October 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the
Inspector's Office regarding Defendant Lake's failure
to forward a step II grievance form.
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
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.
Moore was a biased reviewer of Plaintiff's grievance
against Defendant Whitiniger, violating ...