United States District Court, W.D. Michigan
Honorable Paul L. Maloney 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 Defendants for failure to
state a claim.
is presently incarcerated with the Michigan Department of
Corrections (MDOC) at the Oaks Correctional Facility (ECF) in
Manistee County, Michigan, where the events giving rise to
his complaint occurred. Plaintiff sues Grievance Section
Manager Richard Russell, ECF Law Librarian Nathaniel Bomer,
and ECF Deputy Warden T. Ball.
alleges that during the first week of October 2017, his
appeal from a judgment in a civil rights suit, Holloway
v. McLaren, No. 2:14-cv-83 (W.D. Mich.), was denied by
the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. See Holloway
v. McLaren, No. 16-2508, 2017 WL 5202036 (6th Cir. Aug.
30, 2017). He contends that he had 21 days in which to file a
motion for reconsideration or a motion to alter or amend
judgment, and that he needed extra law library time to
prepare his motion.
October 9, 2017, he sent a kite to Librarian Bomer asking for
extra time. He did not receive a response. On October 13,
2017, Plaintiff saw Bomer during Plaintiff's
regularly-scheduled call out for the law library, and
Plaintiff again asked Bomer for extra time in the law
library. Bomer asked who the defendants were in the action.
When Plaintiff told him that the MDOC was a defendant, Bomer
stated that Plaintiff needed a court to obtain additional
two weeks later, Plaintiff asserts that he received a notice
from the court of appeals indicating that his 21-day deadline
for filing for relief had expired. He contends that it is
“highly possible” that he could have obtained
relief in his favor if he had been able to file a motion for
relief from judgment or motion for reconsideration. (Compl.,
ECF No. 1, PageID.4.)
November 9, 2017, Plaintiff received a misconduct ticket for
being out of place because he did not make it to the library
during his call-out. Plaintiff pled guilty to the misconduct
and received a “4-day sanction, ” which he began
serving that day. (Id.)
November 13, 2017, Plaintiff sent a kite to Defendant Bomer,
requesting forms that would permit him to request library
materials in the same way that prisoners in segregation
receive their materials. Plaintiff never received a response.
He contends that Bomer's failure to respond denied him
access to the courts.
was scheduled to attend the law library on November 15 and
16, 2017, but Bomer allegedly called his unit and informed
other officers that Plaintiff's call-outs had been
cancelled. Plaintiff contends that Bomer lacked authority to
cancel his library call-outs, and misapplied MDOC policy.
Plaintiff also contends that Bomer took these actions in
retaliation for Plaintiff's lawsuit against the prison.
further alleges that, on November 17, and 21, 2018, Bomer
sent Plaintiff an altered copy of the prison library
misconduct policy that omitted a portion of the policy
relevant to Plaintiff's situation.
filed a grievance against Bomer. Apparently, the grievance
reviewer determined that Bomer had taken the appropriate
course of action. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Russell
responded to the grievance at step III of the grievance
appeal process and determined that the grievance reviwer
rendered a proper decision on the grievance. Plainitff
further alleges that Deputy Warden Ball “disregarded .
. . his legal duty by agreeing that the illegal and
unconstitutional acts [of] the prison library staff was the
right thing to do[.]” (Compl., PageID.9.)
claims that Bomer denied Plaintiff his right of access to the
courts, denied Plaintiff his right to due process, and
retaliated against Plaintiff for Plaintiff's protected
conduct. Plaintiff also claims that Defendants Russell and