Cantu v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections
| Decision Date | 01 September 2009 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 07-CV-10339. |
| Citation | 653 F.Supp.2d 726 |
| Parties | Mario CANTU, Plaintiff, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Christopher J. Trainor, Trainer Assoc., White Lake, MI, for Plaintiff.
Cynthia A. Arcaro, MI Dept. of Atty. Gen., Lansing, MI, for Defendants.
Defendants Michigan Department of Corrections ("MDOC"), Ryan Correctional Facility ("RCF"), RCF Warden Raymond Booker, Corrections Officer ("CO") Lieutenant Ken Allen, CO George Reed, CO Todd Campbell, and CO Terry Taylor moved for summary judgment on January 22, 2009 as to plaintiff Mario Cantu's remaining claims1 of employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., as alleged against MDOC and RCF, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claims as alleged against COs Allen Reed, Campbell and Taylor in their individual capacities, and § 1983 Fourteenth Amendment claims as alleged against Warden Booker and CO Lt. Allen in their individual capacities. The motion was referred to Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen. Magistrate Judge Whalen issued a Report and Recommendation on August 12, 2009 recommending that the motion be granted in part, and denied in part. Specifically, Judge Whalen recommends that: (1) MDOC's and RCF's motion for summary judgment of Cantu's Title VII claims of racial discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation be granted as to claims premised on pre-March 2006 conduct, and denied as to claims premised on conduct occurring on and after March 2006; (2) COs Allen's, Campbell's, and Taylor's motion for summary judgment as to Cantu's § 1983 First Amendment retaliations claims be granted; (3) CO Reed's motion for summary judgment as to Cantu's § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claims be denied; (4) CO Lt. Allen's motion for summary judgment be granted as to Cantu's § 1983 Fourteenth Amendment claims; and (5) Warden Booker's motion for summary judgment as to Cantu's § 1983 Fourteenth Amendment claims be granted as to Cantu's substantive due process claims, and denied as to Cantu's equal protection claims. Magistrate Judge Whalen recommends that defendants COs Allen, Campbell, and Taylor be dismissed from this lawsuit.
"A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id. Timely objections have not been filed by any party.
Absent objection, and following a review of the August 12, 2009 Report and Recommendation, the court hereby ACCEPTS the August 12, 2009 Report and Recommendation as its own. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED, IN PART, as to: (1) Cantu's Title VII claims as alleged against MDOC and RCF premised on pre-March 2006 conduct (Counts I-III); (2) Cantu's § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claims as alleged against COs Allen, Campbell, and Taylor (Count VII); (3) Cantu's § 1983 Fourteenth Amendment claims as alleged against CO Lt. Allen (Counts VIII and IX); and (4) Cantu's § 1983 Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim as alleged against Warden Booker (Count IX). These claims are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. Defendants COs Allen, Campbell, and Taylor are hereby DISMISSED from this lawsuit. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is hereby DENIED, IN PART, as to: (1) Cantu's Title VII claims as alleged against MDOC and RCF premised on conduct occurring on and after March 2006 (Counts I-III); (2) Cantu's § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim as alleged against CO Reed (Count VII); and (3) Cantu's § 1983 Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim as alleged against Warden Booker (Count VIII). This matter will proceed on Counts I-III as alleged against MDOC and RCF, Count VII as alleged against CO Reed, and Count VIII as alleged against Warden Booker.
SO ORDERED.
Before the Court is Defendants Michigan Department of Corrections ("MDOC"), Ryan Correctional Facility (Ryan), Raymond D. Booker, Ken Allen, George Reed Todd Campbell, and Terry Taylor's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket #41], filed January 22, 2009, which has been referred for a Report and Recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). For the reasons set forth below, I recommend the following:
(1) That the motion be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as to Title VII claims against Defendants MDOC and Ryan Correctional Facility (Counts I-III), dismissing claims pertaining to allegations preceding the March, 2006 events stated in Plaintiff's August 29, 2006 EEOC complaint with prejudice, but denying summary judgment as to allegations regarding the March, 2006 events and forward.
(2) That the motion be GRANTED as to constitutional claims/ § 1983 against Defendants Allen (Counts VII-IX), Campbell, and Taylor (Count VII), dismissing these Defendants with prejudice.
(3) That the motion be DENIED as to First Amendment Retaliation claims against Defendant Reed (Count VII).
(4) That the motion be GRANTED as to the Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Due Process claims against Defendant Booker (Count IX), dismissing these claims with prejudice, but DENIED as to the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claims (Count VIII).
Plaintiff, a Michigan Department of Corrections ("MDOC") correctional officer formerly working at the Ryan Correctional Facility, filed suit on January 22, 2007, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil rights Act ("ELCRA"), M.C.L. §§ 37.2101 et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as claims of conspiracy and gross negligence.
The Second Amended Complaint, filed on March 28, 2007, makes the following allegations. Plaintiff, of Caucasian and Hispanic descent, began working for the MDOC on May 3, 1998. Second Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 15-18. On August 4, 2001, Plaintiff, then stationed at the Ryan Correctional Facility, reported to his supervising officer that he had witnessed an improper interaction between fellow officer Tamika Fulson, an African-American female, and an inmate. Id. at ¶ 25. Plaintiff later made a statement to a supervising officer, resulting in Fulson's termination. Id. at ¶ 26. Plaintiff alleges that as a result, he was the subject of racial and ethnic harassment, adding that "the supervisory and management staff" at Ryan was "well aware" of the harassment. Id. at ¶ 31.
Plaintiff alleges that he was called a "`snitch,'" his car's tires were flattened, he was threatened with bodily harm, and subjected to ethnic and racial slurs by African-American coworkers. Id. at ¶¶ 33-34. As a result of the harassment, Plaintiff filed a grievance, but contends that because Defendant Warden Booker, an African American male, did not want "to confirm that non-black employees had been racially harassed and ethnically intimidated," the investigation into Plaintiff's allegations was "half-hearted" at best. Id. at ¶¶ 37-38. Although Plaintiff complained of harassment by certain individuals, the Ryan command staff nonetheless required him "to work mandatory overtime shifts that would place him in direct contact with the black officers who'd harassed and threatened him," placing him in "immediate apprehension for his own safety" and creating a hostile work environment. Id. at ¶¶ 39-41. Plaintiff, characterizing his working conditions at the time of the Second Amended Complaint as "hostile and dangerous," notes that while his own October and December, 2006 requests for transfer to a different MDOC facility were rebuffed, "[u]pon information and belief, black employees of the [MDOC] were freely allowed to transfer between correctional facilities." Id. at ¶¶ 44-45. Plaintiff requests injunctive and monetary relief.
On August 21, 2007, 2007 WL 2413103, the Honorable George Caram Steeh granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Docket #7] in part, dismissing Title VII claims against Defendants Booker, Dunbar, Allen, Taylor, Reed, Campbell, and Talley; dismissing ELCRA claims against all Defendants and § 1983 claims against all Defendants in their official capacities; § 1983 retaliation claims against Defendants Booker, Dunbar, and Talley in their individual capacities on the basis of qualified immunity; dismissing all conspiracy claims; and dismissing "Constitutional Violations of Employer" claims and gross negligence claims. Docket # 18, at 22.
The surviving claims are listed as follows: (1) Title VII claims of racial discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation against the MDOC and Defendants Ryan Correctional Facility (Counts I-III); (2) First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Allen, Campbell, Reed, and Taylor in their individual capacities (Count VII); and (3) Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and due process claims against Defendants Booker and Allen (Counts VIII-IX).
Summary judgment is appropriate where "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c). To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must show sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Colhoff
...N.Y.3d 985, 996 N.Y.S.2d 578 (2014) ; State v. Clark , 175 Wash.App. 109, 302 P.3d 553, 555–557 (2013) ; cf. Cantu v. Mich. Dep't of Corr. , 653 F.Supp.2d 726, 744 (E.D. Mich. 2009) (finding that “snitches get stitches” was a “threat of physical harm [that] would without doubt deter an indi......
-
Haire v. Farm & Fleet of Rice Lake, Inc.
...Department of Corrections, 653 F.Supp.2d 726 (E.D. Mich. 2009), cited by Defendant in its reply brief, does not compel a different result. In Cantu, the court excluded plaintiff's allegations of violations predating March 4, 2006, because the plaintiff's EEOC charge “contains absolutely no ......
-
Steiger v. Han
...statute of limitations applies to federal claims brought under § 1983. See M.C.L. § 600.5805(10); Cantu v. Michigan Dep't of Corr., 653 F. Supp. 2d 726, 742 (E.D. Mich. 2009). Both Plaintiff and Defendants agree that this is the applicable statute of limitations. The parties dispute, howeve......
-
Siner v. City of Detroit
...rights suits filed in federal court in Michigan under § 1983, the statute of limitations is three years." Cantu v. Michigan Dep't of Corr., 653 F. Supp. 2d 726, 742 (E.D. Mich. 2009). "A federal court applying a state statute oflimitations to an inmate's federal civil rights action should g......