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.

Taylor v. Jackson

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

January 14, 2020

Lance Taylor, Plaintiff,
v.
Shane Jackson et al., Defendants.

          OPINION

          PAUL L. MALONEY 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 Earnest C. Brooks Correctional Facility, (LRF) in Muskegon Heights, Muskegon County, Michigan. The events about which he complains occurred at that facility. In Plaintiff's first amended complaint (ECF No. 7), Plaintiff sues LRF personnel: Warden Shane Jackson, Resident Unit Manager K. Brege, Assistant Deputy Warden/Housing P. Davis, Prison Counselor D. Melton, Inspector F. Johnson, and Grievance Coordinator T. Pipkins.

         Plaintiff alleges that he transferred in to LRF on October 8, 2019. He was placed in a punitive sanction wing. Plaintiff claims “my General Population privileges were rescinded for a period of 18 days, despite me not being on any disciplinary sanctions.” (Am. Compl., ECF No. 7, PageID.76.)

         By way of letters, Plaintiff asked Inspector F. Johnson to correct the improper placement. She claims she did not receive the letters and denied a move.

         Plaintiff also sent “kites” to Defendants Davis, Jackson, Brege, Melton, and Johnson regarding the problem, but none of them responded.

         Before Plaintiff was moved to general population on October 26, 2019, Defendants Melton and Brege informed Plaintiff that everyone starts out on the sanction wing.

         On October 27, 2019, Plaintiff was taken to segregation after a weapon was recovered from Plaintiff's area of control. Even though he was found not guilty with regard to the weapon, he was released back to a unit on the sanction wing for 17 and one-half days.

         Plaintiff again submitted kites to Melton and Brege. They again told him that he was not special and that his housing complaints were groundless.

         Plaintiff contends that Defendant Pipkins refused to process grievances regarding the housing issue and then Pipkins retaliated against Plaintiff by not processing grievances after Plaintiff filed a grievance against Pipkins. Defendant Johnson rejected a grievance as duplicative even though Plaintiff contends the grievance was not duplicative.

         On December 10, 2019, defendant Pipkins told Plaintiff “Since you want to grieve me, you are no longer allowed to file grievances unless I authorize it. You want to play? Let's play.” Plaintiff was put on modified grievance access.

         Plaintiff claims that his placement in disciplinary housing without reason violates due process, equal protection, and the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff claims that Pipkins failure to process grievances was malicious and that Pipkins' placement of Plaintiff on modified access was retaliatory ...


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.