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.

Madrid v. King

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

March 1, 2018

MARIO MADRID, Plaintiff,
v.
GLENN KING, MARK HOLEY, and CINDY OLMSTEAD, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OVERRULING PARTIES' OBJECTIONS (DOCS. 23, 24) AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS MARK HOLEY AND CINDY OLMSTEAD'S MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. 7)

          AVERN COHN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I.

         This is a prisoner civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff Mario Madrid, formerly a prison inmate in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC), filed a civil complaint through counsel, alleging violations of his First and Eighth Amendment rights by MDOC employees Glenn King, Mark Holey, and Cindy Olmstead. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial proceedings. (Doc. 2).

         Olmstead and Holey filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 7). The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (MJRR), recommending the following:

1. The motion be granted as to the Eighth Amendment Claims against Olmstead and Holey;
2. The motion be granted as to the First Amendment retaliation claims against Holey;
3. The motion be denied as to the First Amendment retaliation claims against Olmstead; and
4. The motion be denied as to Olmstead's request for qualified immunity.

         Defendants and plaintiff filed objections (Docs. 23, 24). For the reasons that follow, the objections will be overruled, the MJRR will be adopted, and the motion to dismiss will be granted in part and denied in part.

         II.

         The MJRR accurately sets for the salient allegations in the complaint which will not be repeated. Briefly, during his incarceration at the G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility (JCF), plaintiff was employed by the Michigan Braille Transcribing Fund (MBTF) as a Braillist certified by the Library of Congress in Literary and Nemeth transcription. At the time of the September, 2014 events in question, Olmstead was the Director of MBTF and Holey was Olmstead's assistant. Defendant Glenn King (King), an MDOC Corrections Officer, who worked within the confines of MBTF for security purposes.

         Plaintiff alleges that King sexually harassed him and other prisoner employees within the MBTF. When Plaintiff objected to King's actions, King threatened plaintiff. Plaintiff complained to Olmstead about King's actions. Eventually, plaintiff filed a formal complaint against King, alleging sexual harassment, retaliation, and unjustified move. King later issued plaintiff a misconduct ticket for being “Out of Place.” Plaintiff was found guilty of the misconduct and given three days of loss of privileges. On rehearing, plaintiff was found not guilty.

         At a later point, Olmstead lifted plaintiff's “hold” which had previously been put in place to keep him from being transferred. As a result, plaintiff was transferred to another facility which resulted in the loss of his well-paying job as a Braillist. Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the retaliatory transfer, he lost “highly lucrative wages while incarcerated” and “a highly desirable career as a Braillist upon his release” from prison. Complaint at ¶ 16. Plaintiff later learned that King was terminated from MDOC employment but was reinstated.

         Plaintiff alleges that his complaints against King “resulted in cruel and unusual conditions of confinement” and that the “adverse actions” taken against him in response to his complaints against King would “deter persons of ordinary firmness from continuing the protected conduct.” Id. at ΒΆ 19. He alleges that Olmstead and Holey failed to ...


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.