United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Northern Division
J. QUIST, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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.
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
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.
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.)
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.
February 18, Plaintiff reported to work at
4:30. 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.
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.
February 19, Plaintiff reported to work at 4:30. Beaudry
again sent Plaintiff back to his cell.
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.
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.
February 25, 2019, Plaintiff received a work detail that
changed his Monday/Tuesday hours to 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
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.
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.
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 ...