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.

Spicer v. Schooley

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

July 8, 2019

Michael Spicer #611394, Plaintiff,
v.
Scott Schooley, Ora Carter, and Yarnice Strange, Defendants.

          MONA K. MAJZOUB MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          VICTORIA A. ROBERTS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons explained, the Court DENIES the motion.

         BACKGROUND

         Michael Spicer (“Spicer”) is a pro se prisoner; he brings this case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Spicer alleges Defendants transferred him to a higher custody facility in retaliation for writing a grievance against corrections officer, Officer Botos.

         In their Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants argue: (1) Spicer failed to exhaust administrative remedies; (2) Spicer failed to state a claim for retaliation; and (3) They are entitled to qualified immunity.

         SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

         The moving party seeking summary judgment has the initial burden to “demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Summary judgment is not granted if the nonmoving party presents evidence to show a genuine issue of material fact; the nonmoving party's evidence must be viewed in the most favorable light. Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378, 387 (6th Cir. 1999); Smith v. Campbell, 250 F.3d 1032, 1036 (6th Cir. 2001).

         “[A] complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. Summary judgment is not granted “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Thaddeus-X, 175 F.3d at 385 (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)).

         ANALYSIS

         I. SPICER EXHAUSTED AVAILABLE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

         Prisoners must exhaust all available administrative remedies before bringing an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (2013). The Supreme Court held “proper exhaustion demands compliance with an agency's deadlines and other critical procedural rules because no adjudicative system can function effectively without imposing some orderly structure on the course of its proceedings.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-1 (2006).

         The Michigan Department of Correction's (MDOC) Policy Grievance process requires these steps:

(1) Prior to submitting a written grievance, the grievant shall attempt to resolve the issue with the staff member involved; (2) If the issue is not resolved, the grievant may file a Step I grievance within five business days after the grievant attempted to resolve the issue with appropriate staff; (3) A grievant may file a Step II grievance if dissatisfied with the response received at Step I or if the response was untimely-Step II must be filed within ten business days after receiving Step I response; (4) A grievant may file a Step III grievance if dissatisfied with the response received at ...

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.