Moore #255379 v. Kafczynski, No. 2:2015cv00196 - Document 11 (W.D. Mich. 2016)
Court Description: OPINION; signed by Judge Gordon J. Quist (Judge Gordon J. Quist, jmt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Moore &#035;255379 v. Kafczynski Doc. 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION ANTHONY LAMONT MOORE, Plaintiff, Case No. 2:15-cv-196 v. Honorable Gordon J. Quist UNKNOWN KAFCZYNSKI, Defendant. ____________________________________/ OPINION This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, PUB. L. NO. 104-134, 110 STAT. 1321 (1996), 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, Plaintiff’s action will be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Factual Allegations Plaintiff, Anthony Lamont Moore, a state prisoner currently confined at the Ojibway Correctional Facility (OCF), filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Assistant Librarian Unknown Kafczynski. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that on Dockets.Justia.com December 4, 2015, Plaintiff received an order from this court in Case No. 2:15-cv-142, stating that Plaintiff was to provide the court with four copies of his complaint for service on the defendants. Plaintiff’s initial request for copies was denied by Defendant because Plaintiff did not have the necessary funds in his account. Plaintiff told Defendant that Defendant was required to make copies for him pursuant to MDOC Policy Directive 05.03.116, but Defendant responded that she did not have to make copies for any prisoner. Plaintiff then stated that he had a court order for copies and that his case could be dismissed if he did not provide them. Defendant stated that she did not care about a court order, that Plaintiff should not be filing lawsuits against prison employees and that she hoped Plaintiff’s case would be dismissed. When Plaintiff threatened to write a grievance on her, Defendant stated, “[S]ince you want to write a grievance on me, I would not make the copies, even if you had the money in your account to pay for them.” On December 8, 2015, when Plaintiff went to the library for electronic case research, Defendant asked if he still planned to file a grievance on her. Plaintiff said that he did. Defendant then reiterated that she was not going to make copies and hoped his case would be dismissed. Later that day, Plaintiff filed a step I grievance on Defendant. On December 9, 2015, Plaintiff was called to Resident Unit Manager Perttu’s office and was told that his grievance did not have any merit and that the Grievance Coordinator would not be processing his grievance. Plaintiff claims that Defendant’s conduct in refusing to make copies for him violated his First Amendment right to be free from retaliation. Plaintiff also claims that Defendant’s conduct in convincing other prison officials to refuse to process Plaintiff’s grievance violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Finally, Plaintiff claims that Defendant’s conduct constituted gross negligence in violation of state law. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. -2- Discussion I. 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)). 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); Dominguez v. -3- Corr. Med. Servs., 555 F.3d 543, 549 (6th Cir. 2009). 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). As noted above, Plaintiff claims that Defendant retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment. Retaliation based upon a prisoner’s exercise of constitutional rights violates the Constitution. See Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378, 394 (6th Cir. 1999) (en banc). In order to set forth a First Amendment retaliation claim, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) he was engaged in protected conduct; (2) an adverse action was taken against him that would deter a person of ordinary firmness from engaging in that conduct; and (3) the adverse action was motivated, at least in part, by the protected conduct. Id. Moreover, a plaintiff must be able to prove that the exercise of the protected right was a substantial or motivating factor in the defendant’s alleged retaliatory conduct. See Smith v. Campbell, 250 F.3d 1032, 1037 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Mount Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287 (1977)). Plaintiff claims that he was engaging in protected conduct when he told Defendant that he was going to file a grievance on her, and subsequently did file such a grievance. The filing of a prison grievance is constitutionally protected conduct for which a prisoner cannot be subjected to retaliation. See Smith v. Campbell, 250 F.3d 1032, 1037 (6th Cir. 2001); Hall v. Nusholtz, No. 99-2442, 2000 WL 1679458, at *2 (6th Cir. Nov. 1, 2000); Burton v. Rowley, No. 00-1144, 2000 WL 1679463, at *2 (6th Cir. Nov. 1, 2000). Therefore, Plaintiff has met the first prong of the test set forth in Thaddeus-X. Plaintiff claims that the adverse action taken by Defendant was to tell him that she was not going to provide him with copies of his complaint in Case No. 2:15-cv-142. A specific -4- threat of harm may satisfy the adverse-action requirement if it would deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising his or her First Amendment rights, see, e.g., Thaddeus-X, 175 F.3d at 396, 398 (threat of physical harm); Smith v. Yarrow, 78 F. App’x 529, 542 (6th Cir. 2003) (threat to change drug test results). However, certain threats or deprivations are so de minimis that they do not rise to the level of being constitutional violations. Thaddeus-X, 175 F.3d at 398; Smith, 78 F. App’x at 542. Plaintiff asserts that these copies were required by the court in order to affect service on four of the defendants in that case. However, Plaintiff fails to reveal that he was subsequently provided with the needed copies and that service was executed on the four defendants on February 2, 2016. See Moore v. Fegan, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-142 (W.D. Mich), ECF Nos. 13-16. Moreover, the order of service in Case No. 2:15-cv-142 stated: Plaintiff shall file with the Court the requisite number of copies of the complaint and exhibits along with a copy of this order OR an affidavit explaining why Plaintiff is unable to provide the requested copies within the fourteen-day period. Should the Court find that the prison failed to make copies upon Plaintiff’s request, the Court will direct the Clerk to make such copies as may be necessary and to charge the Michigan Department of Corrections for the cost of copying at the Court’s usual rate of $.50 per page. Id. at ECF No. 9. Therefore, Plaintiff was aware that he had another method available for obtaining copies of his complaint, despite the alleged refusal by Defendant. Given the circumstances in this case, the court concludes that Defendant’s threat to deny Plaintiff copies was not such that it would deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising his First Amendment rights. Consequently, Plaintiff’s retaliation claim is properly dismissed. Plaintiff also claims that Defendant caused other prison officials to prevent him from pursuing relief via the grievance process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The courts repeatedly have held that there exists no constitutionally protected due process right to an effective -5- 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. 993562, 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. 932411, 1994 WL 105907, at *1 (6th Cir. Mar. 28, 1994). Because Plaintiff has no liberty interest in the grievance process, Defendant’s conduct did not deprive him of due process. Finally, Plaintiff claims that Defendant violated his rights under state law. Claims under§ 1983 can only be brought for “deprivation of rights secured by the constitution and laws of the United States.” Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 924 (1982). Section 1983 does not provide redress for a violation of a state law. Pyles v. Raisor, 60 F.3d 1211, 1215 (6th Cir. 1995); Sweeton v. Brown, 27 F.3d 1162, 1166 (6th Cir. 1994). Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendants violated state law therefore fails to state a claim under § 1983. Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to invoke this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction. In determining whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction, “[a] district court should consider the interests of judicial economy and the avoidance of multiplicity of litigation and balance those interests against needlessly deciding state law issues.” Landefeld v. Marion Gen. Hosp., Inc., 994 F.2d 1178, 1182 (6th Cir. 1993). Ordinarily, where a district court has exercised jurisdiction over a state-law claim solely by virtue of supplemental jurisdiction and the federal claims are dismissed prior to trial, the court will dismiss the remaining state-law claims. Id. Dismissal, however, remains “purely discretionary.” Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. -6- 635, 639 (2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)); Orton v. Johnny’s Lunch Franchise, LLC, 668 F.3d 843, 850 (6th Cir. 2012). Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state-law claim will be dismissed without prejudice. Conclusion Having conducted the review required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Court determines that Plaintiff’s action will be dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 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). For the same reasons that the Court dismisses the action, the Court discerns no good-faith basis for an appeal. 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: May 31, 2016 /s/ Gordon J. Quist GORDON J. QUIST UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -7-
]]>
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.
