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.

Green v. Beaudry

United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Northern Division

August 20, 2019

VIRGIL GREEN, Plaintiff,
v.
TYNNE BEAUDRY et al., Defendants.

          OPINION

          GORDON J. QUIST, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This is 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 for failure to state a claim.

         Discussion

         I. Factual allegations

         Plaintiff is presently incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) at the Chippewa Correctional Facility (URF) in Kincheloe, Michigan. The events about which he complains occurred at that facility. Plaintiff sues the following MDOC employees at URF: Housing Unit Officers Tynne Beaudry and Darnel Wagner and Classification Director Denise Peller.

         On June 23, 2018, Defendant Wagner “hired” Plaintiff to work as a porter. Wagner informed Plaintiff of his duties, workdays, and hours. Initially, Plaintiff was assigned to second shift (4:00 p.m. to midnight) on Mondays and Tuesdays, first shift (8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.) on Wednesdays and Thursdays, and on either shift, as needed, on Fridays.

         On February 4, 2019, Defendant Beaudry demanded that Plaintiff begin his second-shift work at 3:45 p.m. Plaintiff asked Beaudry if Plaintiff would be paid for 15 minutes of overtime. Beaudry became irate and informed Plaintiff: “you are required to work whenever I tell you to.” (Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.5.)

         The next day, Defendant Beaudry again demanded that Plaintiff begin his shift at 3:45 p.m. Although Beaudry made the demand, Plaintiff never received any notice from the classification director that his hours had been changed. After Beaudry made the same demand on February 11, Plaintiff filed a grievance against her complaining that she was abusive and had violated policy directives.

         On February 18, Plaintiff reported to work at 4:30.[1] Defendant Beaudry asked Plaintiff why he had not reported at 3:45 as she had previously demanded. Plaintiff replied that his work detail starts when second shift starts: at 4:00 p.m. Beaudry sent Plaintiff back to his cell and informed Plaintiff that someone else would do Plaintiff's porter work that day.

         Later that day, Defendant Beaudry forced Plaintiff to sign paperwork which required Plaintiff to begin working at 3:45 p.m. The paperwork indicated it would be effective as of February 1, 2019. The documented change in work hours, according to Plaintiff, was never noted on his work detail.

         On February 19, Plaintiff reported to work at 4:30. Beaudry again sent Plaintiff back to his cell.

         In his previous months on the job, although Plaintiff was scheduled as an extra on either first or second shift for Fridays, he had never received a work detail. Nonetheless, Plaintiff was always paid as if he had worked five days.

         On Friday, February 22, for the first time, Plaintiff received a “Friday” work detail. Rather than showing hours of 8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. or 4:00 p.m.-midnight, as assigned by staff, the detail showed hours of 8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m or 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. as assigned by staff. That day, Beaudry had Plaintiff clean the snow from the housing unit doorway at 3:45 p.m. and 8:45 p.m.

         On February 25, 2019, Plaintiff received a work detail that changed his Monday/Tuesday hours to 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. as well.

         On March 4, 2019, Defendant Wagner gave Plaintiff his payroll slip for February. Plaintiff's pay was short by $2.62; he had been paid for 18 days rather than 20 days. Plaintiff complained to Defendant Wagner. Wagner explained that Beaudry had instructed that Plaintiff was not to be paid for two days of work. Plaintiff later discovered that the two days for which he was not paid were February 18 and 19, the days Beaudry had sent Plaintiff back to his cell for not reporting at 3:45, as directed. Plaintiff filed a grievance against Beaudry for docking his pay.

         The same day, Plaintiff received a “work assignment evaluation” signed by Beaudry and Defendant Peller. The work evaluation indicated that Plaintiff's work status was changed to “30-day conditional” beginning February 19, 2019. Plaintiff filed a grievance against Beaudry for the work evaluation as well.

         On March 20, Defendant Wagner informed Plaintiff that his work detail would be reduced from five days to four because “Beaudry said you refused to work on Friday as an ‘Extra.'” (Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.8.) Plaintiff replied that he had “never refused to work during his work detail hours[.]” (Id. (emphasis supplied).) Wagner became irate and stated: “leave the lobby area, that's what happens when you cry about shit.” (Id.) Plaintiff wrote ...


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.