United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Timothy R. Robinson, Plaintiff,
Edward Rodarte, et al., Defendant.
Patricia T. Morris United States Magistrate Judge.
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT 
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN United States District Judge.
Timothy Robinson commenced this litigation on October 14,
2016, asserting claims against several Defendants. Dkt. No.
1. On March 15, 2017, the Court granted the Defendants'
Motion to Sever claims asserted in the Complaint.
See Dkt. No. 25. Pursuant to that decision, the only
Defendant remaining in the action is the St. Louis, Michigan
Correctional Facility Mailroom Staff,  and the only
unresolved claim is that the mailroom staff opened
Plaintiff's mail in violation of the First Amendment of
the United States Constitution. See id.
before the Court is the Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment on Plaintiff's First Amendment Claim, which was
filed on October 16, 2017, well over three months ago .
The motion is not fully briefed, as the Plaintiff has not
responded to the motion, and accordingly, the Defendant has
not filed a reply in support of the motion. No. hearing date
has been scheduled for this motion. For the reasons detailed
below, the Court will GRANT the Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's First Amendment Claim.
Plaintiff, now free on parole, was previously incarcerated at
the St. Louis Correctional Facility in St. Louis, Michigan.
See Dkt. No. 1. While there, mail room staff opened
two of his letters which Robinson alleges were legal mail,
and therefore, should not have been opened outside of his
presence. Id. at p. 9 (Pg. ID 9).
mailings were sent by Robinson to other individuals, and
returned to him as undeliverable. See Dkt. Nos.
39-2, 39-3. The Plaintiff does not allege that the Defendant
read the contents of the mail. Dkt. No. 1, p. 9 (Pg. ID 9).
first mailing was addressed to the law offices of Julie
Gilfix. Dkt. No. 39-2, p. 2 (Pg. ID 226).
“Attorney-client Confidential Communication” is
handwritten on the envelope enclosing this mail. Id.
This mailing is also marked “RETURN TO SENDER;
ATTEMPTED-NOT KNOWN; UNABLE TO FORWARD.” Id.
second mailing is addressed to Jill Price, President of the
Criminal Defense Lawyers of Michigan. Id. It is
similarly marked “RETURN TO SENDER; NOT DELIVERABLE AS
ADDRESSED; UNABLE TO FORWARD.” Id.
Defendant argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on
Plaintiff's First Amendment claim because the Plaintiff
did not have a First Amendment right regarding the relevant
mail, the Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, or
both. The Court agrees. The Defendant is entitled to summary
judgment on Plaintiff's First Amendment Claim.
Court will first take up the ...