John Thompson v. Richard Stapleton, et al, No. 09-1504 (6th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 10a0763n.06 No. 09-1504 FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT LEONARD GREEN, Clerk JOHN THOMPSON, aka John Thompson-Bey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RICHARD STAPLETON, JOANN RICCI; L. MCMILLIAN and JERRY HOFBAUER, Defendant-Appellees GLENDA WELLS; ROBIN PRATT; and HAROLD WHITE, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Dec 15, 2010 ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN Before: MARTIN, GIBBONS, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges. KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. John Thompson-Bey, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court s grant of summary judgment to various defendants in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We review the district court s decision de novo, and construe the facts in the light most favorable to Thompson-Bey. See Ciminillo v. Streicher, 434 F.3d 461, 464 (6th Cir. 2006). Thompson-Bey sued multiple prison officials in their official and individual capacities, alleging that they deprived him of due process in connection with a June 24, 1996, prison disciplinary hearing. The hearing arose after Thompson-Bey killed another inmate. Thompson- No. 09-1504 Thompson-Bey v. Stapleton Bey s official-capacity claims seeking monetary relief are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Will v. Michigan Dep t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70-71 (1989). And because Thompson-Bey has been released from prison, there is no continuing violation, and thus his official-capacity claims for declaratory relief are barred. See Banas v. Dempsey, 742 F.2d 277, 284-88 (6th Cir. 1984). In addition, Thompson-Bey did not appeal the district court s grant of summary judgment in favor of Ricci and Stapleton in their individual capacities, so he has abandoned those claims. Boyd v. Ford Motor Co., 948 F.2d 283, 284 (6th Cir. 1991). We next consider Thompson-Bey s individual-capacity claims against McMillian, who was a prison investigator assigned to Thompson-Bey s case. Thompson-Bey gave McMillian written interrogatories for several witnesses and other questions to investigate. Thompson-Bey contends that McMillian violated his due-process rights by delaying Thompson-Bey s access to the responses to those questions until after the disciplinary hearing. That claim is meritless; the minimal due-process rights afforded a prisoner in disciplinary hearings do not include access to interrogatory responses. See generally Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-67 (1974). Moreover, Thompson-Bey had no due-process right to confront or cross-examine witnesses, id. at 568, and was not even entitled to a hearing investigator. See Love v. Farley, 925 F.2d 1464 (6th Cir. 1991) (unpublished); see also Wolff, 418 U.S. at 570. Thompson-Bey also argues that, because he was being held in administrative segregation pending his disciplinary hearing, McMillian s delay in providing the responses to his questions prevented Thompson-Bey from preparing a defense. But Wolff requires advance notice of the -2- No. 09-1504 Thompson-Bey v. Stapleton charges, not the evidence. See Wolff, 418 U.S. at 563-64. Thompson-Bey received the required notice. Thompson-Bey s allegations against Hofbauer are likewise meritless. He argues that Hofbauer, the prison warden, denied his step-II grievance against McMillian, and thereby knowingly approved and acquiesced in McMillian s unconstitutional conduct. But there was no unconstitutional conduct, so this claim fails. And Hofbauer s denial of Thompson-Bey s administrative grievance is otherwise not actionable under § 1983. See Shehee v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295, 300 (6th Cir. 1999). The district court s judgment is affirmed. -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
