Phillips-Addis #420015 v. Haske et al, No. 1:2020cv00686 - Document 22 (W.D. Mich. 2020)

Court Description: OPINION ; signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker (Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc)

Download PDF

Phillips-Addis &#035;420015 v. Haske et al Doc. 22 Case 1:20-cv-00686-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 22, PageID.175 Filed 12/02/20 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ______ ANDREW J. PHILLIPS-ADDIS, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 1:20-cv-686 Honorable Robert J. Jonker MICHAEL HASKE et al., Defendants. ____________________________/ OPINION 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 Oaks Correctional Facility (ECF) in Manistee, Manistee County, Michigan. The events about which he complains occurred at that facility. Plaintiff sues MDOC Director Heidi Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:20-cv-00686-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 22, PageID.176 Filed 12/02/20 Page 2 of 11 Washington, MDOC Internal Affairs Director Ken MacEachern, ECF Warden Les Parish, ECF Administrative Assistant Jason Mucha, ECF Assistant Deputy Wardens Michael Haske, Jeffrey Clouse, and J. Spencley, ECF Resident Unit Manager R. McCary, ECF Assistant Resident Unit Supervisor K. Johnson, ECF Sergeant Unknown Ward, and ECF Corrections Officers Noah Bottrell, Unknown Best, and D. Weller. The Defendants fall into two groups. The first group consists of Defendants Bottrell, Ward, Best, and Weller. These corrections officers are accused of retaliating against Plaintiff for filing grievances and lawsuits, interfering with his access to the courts, using excessive force, and calling Plaintiff names. All of the allegations against Bottrell, Ward, and Best that are stated in Plaintiff’s complaint are already stated in an earlier lawsuit filed by Plaintiff: PhillipsAddis v. Bottrell et al., No. 1:20-cv-620 (W.D. Mich.). Plaintiff also sued Defendant Weller in that suit; however, he did not allege any particular misconduct committed by Defendant Weller. The body of Plaintiff’s complaint here also fails to implicate Defendant Weller in any misconduct; but, in an exhibit to the complaint, Plaintiff states that Defendant Weller calls inmates sissies and other derogatory slurs suggesting that they are homosexuals. The second group of Defendants—Washington, MacEachern, Parish, Mucha, Haske, Clouse, Spencley, McCary, and Johnson—are persons to whom Plaintiff has complained about Bottrell, Ward, and Best, to no avail. Plaintiff also suggests that this group of Defendants is responsible for an unconstitutional policy regarding administrative grievances. Plaintiff complains that the MDOC does not provide a confidential grievance procedure and that the failure to provide a lockbox for grievances or some other means for grievants to make their complaints in confidence leads to retaliation from corrections officers. 2 Case 1:20-cv-00686-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 22, PageID.177 Filed 12/02/20 Page 3 of 11 Plaintiff seeks an injunction compelling the MDOC to provide confidential grievance boxes or some other means to ensure the confidentiality of grievances, compelling the MDOC to investigate the events at ECF of which Plaintiff complains, transferring Plaintiff to another facility, precluding contact between Bottrell (or any member of Bottrell’s family), Best, or Ward and Plaintiff, returning Plaintiff’s legal papers taken during retaliatory cell searches, and compelling the MDOC to provide mental health treatment. II. Duplicative claims Plaintiffs generally have “no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the same defendants.” Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir. 1977). Accordingly, as part of its inherent power to administer its docket, a district court may dismiss a suit that is duplicative of another federal court suit. See Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976); Adams v. California Dep’t of Health Serv., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007); Missouri v. Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc., 259 F.3d 949, 953-54 (8th Cir. 2001); Curtis v. Citibank, N.A., 226 F.3d 133, 138-39 (2d Cir. 2000); Smith v. SEC, 129 F.3d 356, 361 (6th Cir. 1997). The power to dismiss a duplicative lawsuit is meant to foster judicial economy and the “comprehensive disposition of litigation,” Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Fire Equip. Co., 342 U.S. 180, 183 (1952), and protect parties from “the vexation of concurrent litigation over the same subject matter.” Adam v. Jacobs, 950 F.2d 89, 93 (2d Cir. 1991). In addition, courts have held that an in forma pauperis complaint that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims may be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(i) as frivolous or malicious. See, e.g. McWilliams v. State of Colo., 121 F.3d 573, 574 (10th Cir. 1997) (holding that repetitious litigation of virtually identical causes of action may be dismissed under the in forma pauperis statute as frivolous or malicious); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 3 Case 1:20-cv-00686-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 22, PageID.178 Filed 12/02/20 Page 4 of 11 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting that an action may be dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 when the complaint “merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims); Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 994-95 (5th Cir. 1993) (finding that it is “malicious” for a pauper to file a lawsuit that duplicates allegations of another pending federal lawsuit by the same plaintiff); Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988) (holding that it was appropriate to dismiss an in forma pauperis civil rights suit by prison inmate where suit was duplicative of facts and allegations made in previously dismissed suit, and merely named a different defendant whose actions formed a partial basis for the previous suit); Risley v. Hawk, 918 F. Supp. 18, 22 (D.D.C. 1996) (holding that the district court may dismiss an in forma pauperis action where the complaint duplicates the allegations of other pending or previously filed litigation, even where the previously filed actions were filed in different districts); Hahn v. Tarnow, No. 06-cv-12814, 2006 WL 2160934, at *3 (E.D. Mich. July 31, 2006).1 A complaint is duplicative and subject to dismissal if the claims, parties and available relief do not significantly differ from an earlier-filed action. See Serlin v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 3 F.3d 221, 223 (7th Cir. 1993). Although complaints may not “significantly differ,” they need not be identical. Courts focus on the substance of the complaint. See, e.g. Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021 (holding that a complaint was duplicative although different defendants were named because it “repeat[ed] the same factual allegations” asserted in the earlier case). Considering the substantial similarities between the parties, legal claims, factual allegations, temporal circumstances and relief sought, in the present complaint and the complaint in PhillipsAddis v. Bottrell et al., No. 1:20-cv-620 (W.D. Mich.), the Court concludes that the present 1 Prior to April 26, 1996, the provisions in § 1915(e)(2) were set forth at 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Thus, Cato, Pittman and Bailey were decided under § 1915(d). 4 Case 1:20-cv-00686-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 22, PageID.179 Filed 12/02/20 Page 5 of 11 complaint is duplicative with regard to all claims raised against Defendants Bottrell, Ward, Best, and Parish. Therefore, pursuant to the Court’s inherent power and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(i), Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendants Bottrell, Ward, Best, and Parish will be dismissed on the grounds that it is wholly duplicative and, therefore, frivolous. III. Failure to state a claim A complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it fails “‘to give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). While a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s allegations must include more than labels and conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”). The court must determine whether the complaint contains “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Although the plausibility standard is not equivalent to a “‘probability requirement,’ . . . it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not ‘show[n]’—that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)); see also Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010) (holding that the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard applies to dismissals of prisoner cases on initial review under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)). 5 Case 1:20-cv-00686-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 22, PageID.180 Filed 12/02/20 Page 6 of 11 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the federal Constitution or laws and must show that the deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Street v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 102 F.3d 810, 814 (6th Cir. 1996). Because § 1983 is a method for vindicating federal rights, not a source of substantive rights itself, the first step in an action under § 1983 is to identify the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994). A. Defendant Weller It is a basic pleading essential that a plaintiff attribute factual allegations to particular defendants. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 544 (holding that, in order to state a claim, a plaintiff must make sufficient allegations to give a defendant fair notice of the claim). Where a person is named as a defendant without an allegation of specific conduct, the complaint is subject to dismissal, even under the liberal construction afforded to pro se complaints. See Gilmore v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 92 F. App’x 188, 190 (6th Cir. 2004) (dismissing complaint where plaintiff failed to allege how any named defendant was involved in the violation of his rights); Frazier v. Michigan, 41 F. App’x 762, 764 (6th Cir. 2002) (dismissing plaintiff’s claims where the complaint did not allege with any degree of specificity which of the named defendants were personally involved in or responsible for each alleged violation of rights); Griffin v. Montgomery, No. 003402, 2000 WL 1800569, at *2 (6th Cir. Nov. 30, 2000) (requiring allegations of personal involvement against each defendant); Rodriguez v. Jabe, No. 90-1010, 1990 WL 82722, at *1 (6th Cir. June 19, 1990) (“Plaintiff’s claims against those individuals are without a basis in law as the complaint is totally devoid of allegations as to them which would suggest their involvement in the events leading to his injuries”). 6 Case 1:20-cv-00686-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 22, PageID.181 Filed 12/02/20 Page 7 of 11 Plaintiff’s claims fall far short of the minimal pleading standards under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (requiring “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”) with regard to Defendant Weller. The complaint does not identify any misconduct by Defendant Weller. The only specific reference to Weller’s conduct appears in a handwritten exhibit to the complaint which appears to be intended only as an introduction to a misconduct hearing report. Even in the exhibit, Plaintiff’s allegations against Weller are scant. Plaintiff says only that Weller refers to inmates using derogatory slurs that suggest the inmates are homosexuals. It is not even clear from the exhibit whether Weller is using those references with respect to Plaintiff. Nonetheless, construing the allegation liberally, the Court will address it. The use of harassing or degrading language by a prison official, although unprofessional and deplorable, does not rise to constitutional dimensions. See Ivey v. Wilson, 832 F.2d 950, 954-55 (6th Cir. 1987); see also Johnson v. Dellatifa, 357 F.3d 539, 546 (6th Cir. 2004) (harassment and verbal abuse do not constitute the type of infliction of pain that the Eighth Amendment prohibits); Violett v. Reynolds, No. 02-6366, 2003 WL 22097827, at *3 (6th Cir. Sept. 5, 2003) (verbal abuse and harassment do not constitute punishment that would support an Eighth Amendment claim); Thaddeus-X v. Langley, No. 96-1282, 1997 WL 205604, at *1 (6th Cir. Apr. 24, 1997) (verbal harassment is insufficient to state a claim); Murray v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, No. 95-5204, 1997 WL 34677, at *3 (6th Cir. Jan. 28, 1997) (“Although we do not condone the alleged statements, the Eighth Amendment does not afford us the power to correct every action, statement or attitude of a prison official with which we might disagree.”); Clark v. Turner, No. 963265, 1996 WL 721798, at *2 (6th Cir. Dec. 13, 1996) (“Verbal harassment and idle threats are generally not sufficient to constitute an invasion of an inmate’s constitutional rights.”); Brown v. Toombs, No. 92-1756, 1993 WL 11882 (6th Cir. Jan. 21, 1993) (“Brown’s allegation that a 7 Case 1:20-cv-00686-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 22, PageID.182 Filed 12/02/20 Page 8 of 11 corrections officer used derogatory language and insulting racial epithets is insufficient to support his claim under the Eighth Amendment.”). Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state an Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Weller arising from his alleged verbal abuse. B. Claims against the remaining Defendants premised on their failure to remedy the wrongs allegedly committed by Defendants Bottrell, Ward, Best, and Weller With the exception of Plaintiff’s claim regarding the lack of a confidential grievance remedy, Plaintiff’s claims against the remaining Defendants—Washington, MacEachern, Parish, Mucha, Haske, Clouse, Spencley, McCary, and Johnson—are all based on those Defendants’ failures to respond appropriately to Plaintiff’s complaints about the conduct of Bottrell, Ward, Best, and Weller. For example, Plaintiff states “Michael Haske is [an acting asst. deputy warden] as well [as] a . . . resident unit manager . . . [and] has the ability to address issues at question.” (Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.3.) Similarly, Plaintiff states “R. McCary . . . holds [the right] to correct mistakes notice[d] on 7-8-2020 . . . .” (Id., PageID.4.) Plaintiff reports that he has complained to each of the remaining Defendants about the conduct of Bottrell, Ward, and Best (and perhaps Weller), expecting that by virtue of the remaining Defendants’ superior positions, they will fix the problem. Plaintiff’s claim that the remaining Defendants failed to adequately respond to his grievances or his informal complaints does not state a claim. Government officials may not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior or vicarious liability. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676; Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691(1978); Everson v. Leis, 556 F.3d 484, 495 (6th Cir. 2009). A claimed constitutional violation must be based upon active unconstitutional behavior. Grinter v. Knight, 532 F.3d 567, 575-76 (6th Cir. 2008); Greene v. Barber, 310 F.3d 889, 899 (6th Cir. 2002). The acts of one’s subordinates are not enough, nor can supervisory liability be based upon the mere 8 Case 1:20-cv-00686-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 22, PageID.183 Filed 12/02/20 Page 9 of 11 failure to act. Grinter, 532 F.3d at 576; Greene, 310 F.3d at 899; Summers v. Leis, 368 F.3d 881, 888 (6th Cir. 2004). Moreover, § 1983 liability may not be imposed simply because a supervisor denied an administrative grievance or failed to act based upon information contained in a grievance. See Shehee v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295, 300 (6th Cir. 1999). “[A] plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676. Plaintiff has failed to allege that Defendants Washington, MacEachern, Parish, Mucha, Haske, Clouse, Spencley, McCary, and Johnson engaged in any active unconstitutional behavior by failing to adequately respond to Plaintiff’s complaints about Bottrell, Ward, Best, and.or Weller. Accordingly, those allegations to state a claim. C. Failure to provide a confidential grievance remedy Plaintiff also complains that Defendants, presumably Washington, MacEachern, Parish, Mucha, Haske, Clouse, Spencley, McCary, and Johnson, have violated Plaintiff’s due process rights by failing to provide a confidential grievance remedy. But, Plaintiff has no due process right to file a prison grievance. The courts repeatedly have held that there exists no constitutionally protected due process right to an effective prison grievance procedure. See Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 467 (1983); Walker v. Mich. Dep’t of Corr., 128 F. App’x 441, 445 (6th Cir. 2005); Argue v. Hofmeyer, 80 F. App’x 427, 430 (6th Cir. 2003); Young v. Gundy, 30 F. App’x 568, 569-70 (6th Cir. 2002); Carpenter v. Wilkinson, No. 99-3562, 2000 WL 190054, at *2 (6th Cir. Feb. 7, 2000); see also Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1430 (7th Cir. 1996); Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 75 (4th Cir. 1994) (collecting cases). Michigan law does not create a liberty interest in the grievance procedure. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 249 (1983); Keenan v. Marker, 23 F. App’x 405, 407 (6th Cir. 2001); Wynn v. Wolf, No. 93-2411, 1994 WL 105907, at *1 (6th Cir. Mar. 28, 1994). Because Plaintiff has no liberty interest in the grievance process, 9 Case 1:20-cv-00686-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 22, PageID.184 Filed 12/02/20 Page 10 of 11 Defendants’ failure to provide a confidential grievance remedy did not deprive Plaintiff of due process. Moreover, Plaintiff’s First Amendment right to petition the government for redress does not support the grievance relief Plaintiff requests. The amendment stops the government from generally prohibiting expressions in the form of petitions for redress and from imposing sanctions on one who petitions for redress. Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Emp., Local 1315, 441 U.S. 463, 464 (1979). In Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477 (6th Cir. 1999), the Sixth Circuit explained the nature of the right: The First Amendment guarantees “the right of the people . . . to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” U.S. Const. amend. I. “The right to petition is cut from the same cloth as the other guarantees of that Amendment, and is an assurance of a particular freedom of expression.” McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479, 482 (1985). The First Amendment protects Apple’s right to petition, but his suit is founded completely on a mistaken reading of that Amendment. A citizen’s right to petition the government does not guarantee a response to the petition or the right to compel government officials to act on or adopt a citizen’s views. Apple, 183 F.3d at 479; see also BPNC, Inc. v. Taft, 147 F. App’x 525, 531 (6th Cir. 2005) (“The purpose of the Petition Clause, though, is to ensure that citizens may communicate their will through direct petition to the legislature and government officials.”). Thus, Plaintiff has a First Amendment right to file grievances against prison officials, Herron v. Harrison, 203 F. 3d 410,415 (6th Cir. 2000), but the amendment does not require the government to consider, respond to, or grant relief on that grievance. The right to petition government for redress of grievances cannot be expanded into a right to a confidential grievance procedure. The protections afforded by the right to petition are not that broad. It is a right of expression, not a right to a particular process following the expression. Indeed, “a state has no federal due process obligation to follow all of its own grievance procedures . . . .” Carlton v. Jondreau, 76 F. App’s 642, 644 (6th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, Plaintiff 10 Case 1:20-cv-00686-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 22, PageID.185 Filed 12/02/20 Page 11 of 11 has failed to state a claim for violation of his First Amendment rights based on the Defendants’ alleged failure to provide a confidential administrative grievance remedy. Conclusion Having conducted the review required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Court determines that Plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). The Court must next decide whether an appeal of this action would be in good faith within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 611 (6th Cir. 1997). Although the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s claims are properly dismissed, the Court does not conclude that any issue Plaintiff might raise on appeal would be frivolous. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). Accordingly, the Court does not certify that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. Should Plaintiff appeal this decision, the Court will assess the $505.00 appellate filing fee pursuant to § 1915(b)(1), see McGore, 114 F.3d at 610-11, unless Plaintiff is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis, e.g., by the “three-strikes” rule of § 1915(g). If he is barred, he will be required to pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee in one lump sum. This is a dismissal as described by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). A judgment consistent with this opinion will be entered. Dated: December 2, 2020 /s/ Robert J. Jonker ROBERT J. JONKER CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11

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.