United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
L. MALONEY CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21,
the Court is permitted to drop parties sua sponte
when the parties have been misjoined. Pursuant to that rule,
the Court will drop as misjoined Defendants Loomis, Unknown
Party #1, Rick, Rewerts, Schiebner, Winger, Pung, Washington,
Stevenson, Fleisher, Sanchez, and D. Dine and dismiss
Plaintiff’s claims against them without prejudice.
regard to the claims that remain, 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). Reviewing
Plaintiff’s remaining claims against that standard, the
Court will dismiss all of Plaintiff’s claims against
Defendant Woodin as well as the claims Plaintiff raises
against Defendant Stephan in her official capacity.
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Stephan in her
personal capacity may proceed.
is presently incarcerated with the Michigan Department of
Corrections (MDOC) at the Carson City Correctional Facility
(DRF) in Carson City, Montcalm County, Michigan. The events
about which he complains occurred at that facility. Plaintiff
sues DRF Mental Health Chief H. Woodin and healthcare
provider Unknown Stephan. He sues DRF Librarian R. Loomis,
Unknown Party #1 (described as unknown female librarian), and
Librarian Tech S. Rick. Plaintiff sues MDOC Director Heidi
Washington, DRF Warden Randee Rewerts, Deputy Warden J.
Schiebner, and Assistant Deputy Wardens J. Winger and B.
Pung. Finally, Plaintiff sues DRF Prison Counselors Unknown
Stevenson and Unknown Fleisher, Corrections Officer Unknown
Sanchez, and Mailroom Supervisor D. Dine.
Defendants Woodin and Stephan
arrived at DRF on June 27, 2019. The next day, Defendant
Woodin called Plaintiff out for mental health treatment. On
July 1, Defendant Stephan called Plaintiff out for treatment.
On July 3, Plaintiff sent Defendants Woodin and Stephan a
kite about nightmares he was suffering, nightmares about
correctional officers from Chippewa Correctional Facility and
Warden Connie Horton hanging Plaintiff in his segregation
8, Plaintiff saw Defendant Stephan about the nightmares.
According to Plaintiff, his description of the nightmares
prompted Defendant Stephan to ask him if he was going to sue
people from Chippewa. When Plaintiff responded he would,
Defendant Stephan replied: “You will not be suing
none of my co-works that work for the Department of
Correction, and I will be talking [to] my boss that I took
you off of outpatient treatment f or trying t o sue the
Michigan Department of Correction.” (Compl., ECF No. 1,
Plaintiff sent kites to Defendants Stephan and Woodin
regarding mental health treatment, but got no response. So,
on July 11, Plaintiff filed a grievance against Defendants
Stephan and Woodin for denying Plaintiff outpatient treatment
in retaliation for suing the Michigan Department of
Corrections. Plaintiff has continued to kite these
defendants, but he has received no responses and, apparently,
no outpatient treatment.
Defendants Loomis, Unknown Female Librarian, and S.
11, Defendant Loomis and two library techs refused to put
Plaintiff on call-out to see the legal writer. On July 16,
Plaintiff grieved them. On August 1, Plaintiff was
interviewed regarding the grievance by Unknown Female
Librarian and S. Rick. According to Plaintiff, because he
would not sign off on the grievance, those two retaliated
against Plaintiff saying that they were taking Plaintiff off
of law library call out and that the legal writer would not
file Plaintiff’s motions. Plaintiff filed a grievance
against those two Defendants on August 6. He has not been put
back on call-out for the law library or the legal writer
service since that time.
attaches the initial grievance and the response to his
complaint. (ECF No. 1-1, PageID.19-20.) It does not appear
that Plaintiff takes issue with the information in the
response. The response reveals that when Plaintiff arrived at
DRF he had to be approved for the legal writer program there
before he could use the program. He applied on July 2. He was
approved on July 16. When Loomis and the library techs
refused to call Plaintiff out for the legal writer, Plaintiff
was not approved for the program.
Defendants Washington, Rewerts, Schiebner, Winger, and
August 2, Plaintiff filed a “Declaratory Ruling
Motion” on Defendants Washington, Rewerts, Schiebner,
Winger, and Pung, because they knew DRF Grievance Coordinator
Becher was not processing Plaintiff’s grievances, yet
they did nothing about it.
Defendants Stevenson, Fleischer, Sanchez, and Dine
August 8 and 9, Plaintiff could not get anyone to process his
legal mail. On August 12, Plaintiff filed a grievance about
it. That day, Defendant Stevenson called Plaintiff out to
Defendant Fleischer’s office for mail processing.
Plaintiff gave Stevenson one legal mail envelope and
disbursement form and one indigent mail envelope and
disbursement form. Stevenson told Plaintiff that he would
have Defendant Sanchez shake down Plaintiff’s cell in
retaliation for Plaintiff filing the grievance. Minutes
later, Defendant Sanchez shook down Plaintiff’s area of
control and told Plaintiff he was doing so in retaliation for
Plaintiff’s filing of the grievance.
August 13, Plaintiff gave Defendant Fleischer one envelope
and disbursement form for a letter to a family member. On
August 15, the mail came back to Plaintiff from Defendant
Dine, the mailroom supervisor, after it had been opened and
read by staff members. Plaintiff claims he was entitled to
indigent postage that should have permitted the envelope to
be mailed. The documents he attaches to his complaint reveal
that Defendant Dine concluded Plaintiff had exhausted his
indigent postage allotment for the month and did not have
postage to send the August 13, (or another) letter. It
appears that Plaintiff and Defendant Dine differ in their
interpretation of the postage policy.
Defendants Washington, Rewerts, Schiebner, ...