Annabel v. Campbell
| Decision Date | 04 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 20-11114 |
| Parties | ROBERT ANNABEL, II, Plaintiff, v. SHERMAN CAMPBELL, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 36)
Pro se plaintiff Robert Annabel, II (“Annabel”) who was incarcerated within the Michigan Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) during the relevant time period[1], brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against MDOC employees Sherman Campbell, David Messer, Christina Bates, Stacey Ream, Brian Evers, Richard Russell, Mark Houser, Arthur Thomas, and Heidi Washington (collectively, “Defendants”). (ECF No 1). An Order of Reference was entered on May 6, 2021 referring all pretrial matters to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). (ECF No. 23).
On July 13, 2021, Defendants filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Basis of Exhaustion. (ECF No. 36). Annabel filed an amended response on August 20, 2021 and Defendants filed a reply on September 23, 2021. (ECF Nos. 42, 43).[2]
The Court finds that the facts and legal issues are adequately presented in the briefs and on the record, and it declines to order a hearing at this time. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f).
For the reasons set forth below, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 36) be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
1. The Underlying Incidents
Annabel is a recent MDOC parolee who, at all relevant times, was confined at the Gus Harrison Correctional Facility (“ARF”) in Adrian, MI. He brings this § 1983 civil rights action, alleging violations of his rights under the United States Constitution, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq. (“RLUIPA”), and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (“ADA”).
In his operative amended complaint, Annabel alleges a series of events stemming from his assignment to a weekly work detail during the Sabbath by Corrections Program Coordinator Christina Bates (“Bates”) in September 2019, which allegedly violated his religion and led to his filing a grievance. (ECF No. 18, PageID.132-33). As a result, Annabel asserts that, “in a conspiracy to continue the violations of [his] free exercise rights,” Warden Sherman Campbell (“Campbell”), Deputy Warden David Messer (“Messer”), Grievance Coordinator Stacey Ream (“Ream”), Assistant Deputy Warden Brian Evers (“Evers”), Grievance Manager Richard Russell (“Russell”), Sergeant Mark Houser (“Houser”), and Resident Unit Manager Arthur Thomas (“Thomas”), subjected him to a series of retaliatory “harassment and corruption” through “malicious effort[s] to obstruct the grievance process” by “falsely reject[ing]” his grievance and “threaten[ing] to retaliate if [Annabel] continued to file grievances.” (Id., PageID.133-35). Annabel further asserts that MDOC Director Heidi Washington (“Washington”) upholds an “overbroad” and “vague” prisoner discipline policy that “promote[s] retaliation with impunity,” denies “reasonable notice” for discipline, and “disparately impacts prisoners with mental illness behavioral issues.” (Id., PageID.137-38).
Specifically, Annabel alleges that his “religion is a form of Christianity that observes the weekly Sabbath [from] sundown Friday to sundown Saturday,” during which “no work must be done, nor wages received.” (Id., PageID.132). However, in September 2019, Bates allegedly “assigned [Annabel] an on-grounds maintenance work detail” for “Fridays and Saturdays.” (Id., PageID.132-33). After several “failed attempts” to “exchange” his scheduled workdays during the Sabbath with his usual days off on “Wednesdays and Thursdays,” Annabel “wrote a grievance.” (Id., PageID.133). According to Annabel, “[t]here was no legitimate penological interest or even a compelling governmental interest behind denying his request.” (Id.).
Starting from this point, Annabel allegedly became the target of a “conspiracy to continue the violations of [his] free exercise rights.” (Id.). He alleges that, in “a malicious effort to obstruct the grievance process,” Ream and Evers “falsely rejected the grievance at Step I” without addressing it “on the merits,” even though he “clearly followed the grievance policy.” (Id.). Ream and Evers “also threatened to retaliate if [he] continued to file grievances by placing him on Modified Grievance Access for 3 months.” (Id., PageID.133-34).
When Annabel appealed “the grievance to Step II,” Campbell allegedly “changed the obviously false rejection to a new false rejection for non-grievable issue, claiming that Plaintiff has no religious rights under MDOC policy or the Constitution.” (Id., PageID.134). He then appealed “the grievance to Step III,” at which point Russell “upheld the malicious rejection that the issue was non-grievable and that Plaintiff had no religious rights.” (Id.). Annabel alleges that, throughout “2019 and 2020,” Campbell and Ream “began another campaign of retaliatory harassment by falsely rejecting any grievance alleging unconstitutional conditions, . . . [and] repeatedly threatened Plaintiff with Modified Grievance Access.” (Id., PageID.135).
Annabel further alleges that, when “the harassment and corruption continued,” he sent a kite to Ream on April 17, 2020, stating, “You are a very corrupt defendant,” which he contends was a “true statement of both Campbell and Ream as protected speech.” (Id.). In response, Ream issued Annabel a “Class II Insolence misconduct charge,” violating his “right to criticize her for being corrupt and that such was being litigated.” (Id.). Houser reviewed the misconduct ticket on April 20th, but despite Annabel's explanation that the ticket “was retaliation for protected speech, not insolence,” Houser failed to “quash the ticket” and instead stated that “Campbell and Ream would write more tickets if he continued to complain or file grievances.” (Id., PageID.136). On April 22nd, Annabel showed the ticket to Evers, who allegedly responded, threatened him with “more time in prison,” and said that “Campbell disapproves of Plaintiff's protected conduct.” (Id.). On April 24th, Thomas held a misconduct hearing and, with “retaliatory motive and intent,” found Annabel guilty. (Id.). Annabel then filed “a misconduct appeal,” which Campbell “denied [] personally.” (Id.).
Finally, Annabel alleges that Washington “upholds a policy or custom to never discipline any employee who retaliates” because the definition of “Insolence” under Policy Directive 03.03.105 was so “overbroad” that it included First Amendment “protected conduct,” but also so “vague [] that it failed to give him reasonable notice that complaining that an employee was ‘a very corrupt defendant' constituted ‘Insolence,'” in violation of Fourteenth Amendment due process. (Id., PageID.137). He also asserts that Washington and Campbell “subjected [him] to cruel and unusual punishment [under the Eighth Amendment] by refusing to authorize a waiver of the Loss of Privileges sanctions he has served since June 2014 despite a period of nearly a year without misconduct (only the retaliatory ‘Insolence' charge),” and “violated the ADA with a Prisoner Discipline Policy that disparately impacts mentally ill prisoners while refusing to reasonably accommodate them with sanction waivers for improved behavior.” (Id., PageID.139).
Based on the above allegations, Annabel sues the Defendants “in their personal capacities for alleged violations of the Constitution, but in their official capacities for RLUIPA and ADA claims.” (Id., PageID.132). Specifically, he brings (1) First Amendment free exercise and RLUIPA claims against Campbell, Messer, Bates, Ream, Evers, and Russell; (2) First Amendment retaliation claims against Campbell, Ream, Evers, Houser, and Thomas; (3) First Amendment free speech and Fourteenth Amendment due process claims against Washington; and (4) Eighth Amendment and ADA claims against Washington and Campbell. (Id., PageID.138-39). Annabel seeks, among other relief, monetary damages, and injunctive relief to stop being forced to “work or accept wages on the Sabbath days” and to “expunge the ‘Insolence' charge” and waive the related sanctions stemming from that charge. (Id., PageID.139-40).
Defendants now move for partial summary judgment on Annabel's claims against them. Specifically, Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on all but one claim of a retaliatory misconduct ticket against Ream, based on Annabel's alleged failure to exhaust administrative remedies before filing this lawsuit.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, the Court will grant summary judgment if “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P 56(a); see also Pittman v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 640 F.3d 716, 723 (6th Cir. 2011). A fact is material if it might affect the outcome of the case under governing law. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). In determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, the Court assumes the truth of the non-moving party's evidence and construes all reasonable inferences from that evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Ciminillo v. Streicher, 434 F.3d 461, 464 (6th Cir. 2006...
To continue reading
Request your trial