United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ANTHONY L. KINARD, #157033, Plaintiff,
A. VALONE, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN, JUDGE
matter is presently before the Court on defendant's
motion for summary judgment [docket entry 43]. Plaintiff has
filed a response in opposition. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A.
Stafford has issued a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) in which she recommends that the
Court deny defendant's motion. Neither party has objected
to the R&R and the time for them to do so has expired.
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3), for the following reasons
the Court shall reject the magistrate judge's
recommendation and grant defendant's motion.
a prisoner civil rights case. The Court previously summarized
plaintiff's allegations as follows:
When he filed his complaint, plaintiff was incarcerated at
the Thumb Correctional Facility in Lapeer, Michigan where
defendant A. Valone (“defendant”) is or was the
The complaint alleges that, on April 27, 2016, plaintiff was
on his way to the prison law library to do legal research
when a prisoner named Joey Allen asked plaintiff to hand a
photocopy disbursement form to the library clerk. Allen wrote
something on the form and handed it to plaintiff, who
apparently submitted the form to defendant. Defendant
subsequently filed two misconduct reports, which charged
plaintiff with possession of a forged document. Defendant
also discontinued plaintiff's library privileges for
approximately two and a half weeks pending a hearing on the
One of the misconduct reports was withdrawn because it was a
duplicate, and on May 9, 2016, a correctional official held a
hearing on the remaining report. The hearing officer compared
the writing on the photocopy disbursement form to Allen's
handwriting and determined that Allen, not plaintiff, filled
out the form. Accordingly, the hearing officer found
plaintiff not guilty of the charge. Plaintiff had filed a
grievance against defendant, claiming that defendant violated
his constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Plaintiff also asserted that defendant was corrupt and that
his conduct was unbecoming of a correctional employee.
Because plaintiff was found not guilty, the grievances were
deemed resolved and his library privileges restored.
of Dismissal at 1-2. In Count One, plaintiff claimed
defendant violated his “First Amendment Right to Access
The Courts and not to be removed from the law library in
retaliation for exercising my constitutional rights to use of
the law library.” Compl. ¶ 40.
Counts Two through Five plaintiff asserted claims under the
Fourteenth Amendment and the Michigan Constitution for due
process violations and unequal treatment.
Court dismissed all of plaintiff's claims pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1), and
plaintiff appealed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed except as to
plaintiff's retaliation claim, and it remanded for
further proceedings as to that claim. See Kinard v.
Valone, No. 17-1224 (6th Cir. Apr. 12, 2018).
now seeks summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiff
failed to exhaust his remedies under the prison grievance
system. Defendant correctly notes that the exhaustion of such
remedies is a prerequisite to filing suit. As this Court
[t]he Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”)
requires that a prisoner must exhaust all administrative
remedies before filing a Section 1983 action. 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e(a). Proper exhaustion requires a prison to
“compl[y] with an agency's deadlines and other
critical procedural rules.” Woodford v. Ngo,
548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006). The MDOC has established a three-step
process to review and resolve prisoner grievances.
“Under the [Michigan] Department of Corrections'
procedural rules, inmates must include the ‘[d]ates,
times, places and names of all those involved in the issue
being grieved' in their initial grievance.”
Reed-Bey v. Pramstaller, 603 F.3d 322, 324 (6th Cir.
Bennett v. Winn, No. 17-12249, 2018 WL 3853601, at
*3 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 14, 2018). As noted by the Court in
Woodford, one of the purposes of requiring proper
exhaustion is to “provide prisons with a fair
opportunity to correct their own errors.”
Woodford, 548 U.S. at 94. To be sufficient, a
grievance need not “allege a specific legal theory or
facts that correspond to all the required elements of a
particular legal theory.” Burton v. Jones, 321
F.3d 569, 575 (6th Cir. 2003). Nonetheless, the grievance
must give “fair notice of the alleged mistreatment or
misconduct that forms the basis of the constitutional or
statutory claim made against a defendant in a prisoner's
was required to comply with MDOC Policy Directive 03.02.130
(“Prisoner/Parolee Grievances”), a copy of which
is attached to defendant's motion as Exhibit A. Under the
procedures outlined therein, an aggrieved inmate must
“attempt to resolve the issue with the staff member
involved within two business days after becoming aware of a
grievable issue.” Id. ¶ P. If the issue
is not resolved, the inmate may file a Step I grievance
“[w]ithin five business days after attempting to
resolve a grievable issue with staff.” Id.
¶ V. In a Step I grievance, “[t]he issues should
be stated briefly but concisely. Information provided is to
be limited to the facts involving the issue being
grieved (i.e., who, what, when, where, why, how). Dates,
times, places, and names of all those involved in the issue
being grieved are to be included.” Id. ¶
R (emphasis in original). If the inmate is dissatisfied with
the response at Step I, he may file a Step II grievance
“within ten business days after receiving the Step I
response.” Id. ¶ BB. If the inmate is
dissatisfied with the response at Step II, he may file a Step
III grievance “within ten business days after receiving
the Step II response or . . . within ten business days after
the date the response was due.” Id. ¶ FF.
filed two grievances regarding his difficulties with access
to the law library. The first, whose identification number