United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Northern Division
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
J. QUIST UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Anthony Lamont Moore, a prisoner currently incarcerated with
the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC), sued
Defendant, Carla Davis-a Corrections Officer with the
MDOC-alleging that she violated his rights under the First
and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In
particular, Moore alleged that Davis was deliberately
indifferent to Moore's safety by ignoring his request for
protection from another inmate and that Davis ignored
Moore's request for protection in retaliation for
Moore's prior grievance activity.
brings his claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the
Court has jurisdiction over Moore's claims pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1331. Moore's claims were tried to the
Court on June 18, 2018. The Court heard testimony from Moore,
Davis, and Alan Thompson and received exhibits.
Court now issues its findings of fact and conclusions of law.
August 26, 2013, Moore was confined at the Chippewa
Correctional Facility. That afternoon, prior to count time,
Moore, and Moore's friend, inmate Alan Thompson, were
playing dominoes. During the game, Thompson and Moore
exchanged words after Thompson got Moore out of the game.
Thompson, believing that Moore had an attitude toward
Thompson, became agitated and threatened Moore.
thereafter and immediately prior to count time, Moore told
Davis that he was having problems with Thompson and that he,
Moore, feared for his safety. Davis told Moore that it could
not be serious because Moore did not look hurt and that Moore
should let her know when he was hurt. Moore responded that he
would file a grievance on Davis. Davis told Moore to go back
to his cell.
went back to his cell for count. Thompson, who
“bunked” right across from Moore, was in his
cell. About an hour later, Thompson called Moore into the
bathroom to speak about their problem. Moore went into the
bathroom where Thompson and Moore engaged in a fight. At that
point Davis responded to the commotion in the bathroom and
found Thompson and Moore flailing at each other. Davis
instructed both prisoners to stop fighting, and they did so.
Moore showed no injuries or bleeding from the altercation.
Davis wrote misconduct reports on both Moore and Thompson.
an investigation and a hearing on the misconduct, Moore and
Thompson both pled guilty to fighting. The hearing officer
upheld Moore's misconduct charge.
noted, Moore alleges a First Amendment retaliation claim and
a claim of deliberate indifference under the Eighth
based upon a prisoner's exercise of his constitutional
rights violates the Constitution. See Thaddeus-X v.
Blatter, 175 F.3d 378, 394 (6th Cir. 1999) (en banc). In
order to establish a First Amendment retaliation claim, a
plaintiff must prove that: (1) he engaged in protected
conduct; (2) an adverse action was taken against him that
would deter a person of ordinary firmness from engaging in
that conduct; and (3) the adverse action was motivated, at
least in part, by the protected conduct. Id.
Moreover, a plaintiff must be able to prove that the exercise
of the protected right was a substantial or motivating factor
in the defendant's alleged ...