United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
K. MAJZOUB MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY
VICTORIA A. ROBERTS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. For
the reasons explained, the Court DENIES the motion.
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.
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.
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).
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)).
SPICER EXHAUSTED AVAILABLE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
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).
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 ...