Coleman v. Mohlman
| Decision Date | 24 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-13494 |
| Parties | MARK COLEMAN, Plaintiff, v. TORI MOHLMAN, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Honorable Terrence G. Berg
Plaintiff Mark Coleman ("Coleman"), an incarcerated person, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his First Amendment rights. (ECF No. 1.) Before the Court is a motion to dismiss filed by the defendants - Tori Mohlman ("Mohlman"), Cindy Olmstead ("Olmstead"), and Mark Holey ("Holey") (collectively, the "Defendants") on March 12, 2020. (ECF No. 13.) Coleman filed a response, and Defendants filed a reply. (ECF Nos. 19, 23.)
Generally, the Court will not hold a hearing on a motion in a civil case in which a party is in custody. See E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1.(f). Here, 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.
For the reasons set forth below, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 13) be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
This is a pro se civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Coleman, who is currently a prisoner of the Michigan Department of Corrections ("MDOC") at the Carson City Correctional Facility. During the relevant period, Coleman was lodged at the G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility ("JCF"). (ECF No. 1, PageID.2.) Coleman alleges that the Michigan Braille Transcribing Fund ("MBTF") is "an independent private entity" that operates out of JCF, engaging inmates to "transcrib[e] reading materials for the blind," and that he has worked for MBTF for more than 20 out of the last 27 years. (Id.) Coleman's claims in this action arise out of interactions he had with certain of MBTF's civilian staff.
On February 20, 2018, Coleman filed a hostile work environment complaint with MBTF's Executive Board of Directors. (ECF No. 23, PageID.334, 348-51.) Olmstead is CEO/Director of MBTF, and around mid-2018, she hired Mohlman (who Coleman claims is Olmstead's daughter) to serve as her Administrative Assistant. Coleman alleges that on two separate occasions Mohlman yelled at him about his employment responsibilities. (Id. at PageID.334-35.) On October 2, 2018, Coleman filed a written complaint with Olmstead about Mohlman's alleged harassment. (ECF No. 1, PageID.2; ECF No. 23, PageID.353-55.) Coleman alleges that about one week later, Olmstead met with him, but declined to take any action regarding his complaint. (Id.)
In December 2018, Coleman wrote to an attorney who is representing a former inmate in another Eastern District of Michigan civil action against Olmstead (and others), Madrid v. King, et al., E.D.M.I. Case No. 2:17-cv-11266. Coleman alleges that on February 26, 2019, Mohlman blocked him from certain production databases at work that were critical to carry out the functions of his position. (ECF No. 23, PageID.335-36.) After raising the issue with Olmstead, Olmstead informed Coleman that the files were being transferred to other employees. (Id. at PageID.336.) As a result, Coleman submitted a request for reassignment to another position within MBTF. (Id.) On February 27, 2019, Olmstead informed Coleman that his request would be honored. (Id.)
(ECF No. 23, PageID.336-37, 357.)
On April 25, 2019, Detroit News Reporter James Dickson ("Dickson") visited MBTF to interview inmates, including Coleman. (ECF No. 23, PageID.337.) Towards the end of Coleman and Dickson's conversation, Coleman advised Dickson that should Dickson want to talk further about MBTF he could email Coleman through Jpay. (Id.) Coleman alleges that Mohlman interrupted the conversation and told Dickson that any discussion with Coleman must be cleared with MBTF first. (Id.) Coleman responded, stating that no clearance is required. (Id. at 338.)
The next day, April 26, 2019, Coleman alleges that he asked Mohlman for a document he needed to complete an assignment. (Id.; Id.; ECF No. 1, PageID.4.) Coleman alleges that Mohlman began yelling at him and responded, (Id.; ECF No. 1, PageID.4.) Coleman responded by asking Mohlman to take the documents he had been working on and to provide them to Olmstead. (ECF No. 23, PageID.338.) He admits also saying, "I'm tired of your attitude and abuse all the time." (ECF No. 1, PageID.4; ECF No. 23, PageID.373-75.) Shortly thereafter, Holey told Coleman that he had to leave for the day. (ECF No. 23, PageID.338.) Coleman was "laid in" (temporarily removed from work) from April 26, 2019 until May 2, 2019. (ECF No. 1, PageID.4.) However, Coleman admits that he was paid for the days he did not work, and that he was transferred to the job he had requested. (ECF No. 23, PageID.339, 363.)
On April 26, 2019, Coleman filed a grievance with MDOC against Mohlman, Holey and Olmstead. (Grievance # JCF.19.04.0791.17A) (Id.; ECF No. 23, PageID.339, 359-62.) MDOC denied this grievance on June 6, 2019, because Coleman "reutrned [sic] to work in a position he prferred [sic] over the last one he held and lost no pay." (ECF No. 23, PageID.363.) On June 14, 2019 Coleman appealed this decision (Id. at PageID.364). MDOC denied this appeal on July 2, 2019 (Id. at PageID.365). Coleman subsequently appealed this decision on or around August 2, 2019 (Id. at PageID.366-67). MDOC also denied that appeal on August 19, 2019 (Id. at PageID.368).
On May 2, 2019, Coleman was called back to work with MBTF and was issued a Prisoner Employee Counseling and/or Warning Notice ("Warning Notice") regarding the April 26, 2019 interaction with Mohlman and Holey. (ECF No. 1, PageID.4-5; ECF No. 23, PageID.372-5.) But Coleman admits that this document merely warned him that if he received three such "warnings,"it "will mean dismissal from assignment." (ECF No. 1, PageID.5.) Though he made no mention of it in his complaint, in his response brief, Coleman alleges that in conjunction with this Warning Notice, MBTF held what Coleman alleges was its first ever disciplinary proceeding, conducted by Olmstead, Holey and an MDOC Correctional Officer. (ECF No. 23, PageID.339.) During this hearing, Coleman alleges he was not permitted to make a statement, provide witnesses or enter a defense. (Id.) MBTF then reassigned Coleman to the position he had previously requested. (Id. at PageID.336.)
Coleman alleges that on May 9, 2019, he received the following Jpay email from Dickson that Dickson had sent a few days earlier:
. . . I'm writing because I learned that the very next day after we met, you were laid in from the program and have been kicked out of it. MDOC says it had nothing to do with our discussion, that there had been issues. I re-listened to the interview yesterday and have a tough time seeing that. You spoke with great reverence for the program and how it allows you to give back. You'd been there 25 years. That doesn't strike me as something someone would part with lightly. What's your side of the story on the separation? And what are you doing now for work? Do you have any recourse at all to try to get the job back?
(ECF No. 1, PageID.5; ECF No. 23, PageID.388.)
Coleman alleges that he attempted to respond by e-mail, but "observed he had been blocked from responding to [Dickson]." (ECF No. 23, PageID.339-40.) Coleman blames Defendants, alleging that they "asked some unknown individual to prevent [him] from speaking with the Reporter James Dickson." (Id., PageID.340-41; see also id., PageID.340 () He claims they did this because "they did not want the press to know about the abusive conditions of employment within [MBTF] and their mistreatment of its convict staff." (Id., PageID. 341.)
Coleman filed some sort of internal "complaint" about the block of his Jpay account. (ECF No.1, PageID.5; ECF No. 23, PageID.340.) MDOC conducted an investigation into the block, confirmed the block had been imposed with respect to Dickson, and advised Coleman that Jpay had since removed the block. (Id.) However, MDOC would not reveal the identity of the individual who placed the block. (Id.) Though not entirely clear, it appears Coleman was able to mail a letter to Dickson on May 16, 2019. (ECF No. 23, PageID.340.)
On May 6, 2019, Coleman filed another grievance with MDOC in response to the May 2, 2019 disciplinary proceeding at MBTF. (Grievance # JCF.2019.05.0844.02Z) (ECF No. 23, PageID.339, 370.) MDOC denied this grievance on June 5, 2019 because Coleman was paid for the days he did not work while "laid in." (ECF No. 23, PageID.371.) On June 14, 2019, Coleman appealed this decision. (Id. at PageID.377.) MDOC denied the appeal on July 26, 2019. (Id.). Coleman again appealed on August 12, 2019, but the MDOC denied it on September 16, 2019. (Id. at PageID.378.)
On November 25, 2019, Coleman filed his complaint in this Court, asserting a First Amendment retaliation claim in which he alleges that the Defendants retaliated against him following his complaints and grievances. (ECF No. 1.) Defendants have moved to dismiss Coleman's complaint, and that motion is fully briefed. (ECF Nos. 13, 19, 23.)
To continue reading
Request your trial