Flakes v. Brown
| Decision Date | 29 June 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:16-cv-418 |
| Parties | JASON FLAKES, Plaintiff, v. C. BROWN et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Honorable Robert J. Jonker
This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner under 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.
Plaintiff Jason Flakes presently is incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) and housed at the Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility (IBC). He sues the following IBC officials: Mail Room Officer C. Brown; Assistant Resident Unit Supervisor (ARUS) J. Buchin; Resident Unit Manager Rufus Wright; Supervisor Arleen Edwards; Warden Tony Trierweiler; and Grievance Coordinator Mitch Vroman.
Plaintiff alleges that his sister mailed him seven photographs of his female friend. On July 27, 2015, Defendant Brown sent Plaintiff a Notice of Mail Rejection, based on a determination that the photographs showed a woman's naked buttocks, in violation of MICH. DEP'T OF CORR., Policy Directive 05.03.118 ¶ MM(13).1 Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing. On August 6, 2015, Plaintiff also filed a grievance (IBC 1508-2164-15A), demanding a timely hearing and an opportunity to personally review the photographs. Defendant Buchin conducted a hearing on the mail rejection on August 7, 2015. Buchin showed Plaintiff photocopies of the photographs, which were redacted with black marker across the buttocks area, so Plaintiff could not get a clear view of the content of the photographs. Plaintiff complained about his inability to determine the content of the photos, but Defendant Buchin refused to allow Plaintiff to see the actual contraband,indicating that to do so would violate policy and create a threat to the security of the institution and the staff. But Buchin informed Plaintiff that he personally would view the original photographs before making his determination. Defendant Buchin then adjourned the hearing.
Immediately after the hearing, Plaintiff wrote to Defendant Trierweiler, ostensibly on behalf of his sister.2 Plaintiff complained that the photographs were not pornographic, as, despite the redactions, it could plainly be seen that the woman was wearing either Daisy Duke short-shorts with a ruffle or a bathing suit. The photographs did not reveal the woman's genitals. Plaintiff received a response indicating that he was required to grieve the hearing results and follow the grievance process.
Defendant Buchin continued the hearing on August 10, 2016. Plaintiff complains that the photographs still were not available to Plaintiff, but Buchin advised Plaintiff that he had seen the pictures and could not allow them because the woman had clearly exposed her buttocks. Plaintiff stated that he had similar pictures already in his cell, and he complained that black women were being targeted because of their genetics, which cause them to have large thighs, hips and buttocks. Plaintiff also indicated that a woman wearing a thong was not exposing her bare buttocks. Defendant Buchin concluded that, although the woman was wearing a bathing suit, she nevertheless exposed her buttocks. As a result, Buchin held, the pictures violated Policy Directive 05.03.118. Plaintiff was given the opportunity to either pay to have the pictures mailed back to the sender or have the pictures destroyed.
Plaintiff filed a second grievance (IBC 1508-2203-07A) on August 10, 2015, arguing that Defendant Buchin violated his right to due process when he refused to allow Plaintiff to view the pictures at the hearing and when he determined that the pictures were barred by prison policy. Plaintiff also alleged that Defendant Buchin was racially biased against Plaintiff's "black female friend because she is big and the clothes she worn." (Attach. to Compl., ECF No. 1-1, PageID.39.)
On August 12, 2015, Plaintiff wrote to Defendant Brown, asking that Brown hold Plaintiff's photographs until Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies. Brown did not respond. As a result, on August 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a third grievance (IBC 1508-2320-15A) against Brown for failing to respond to the kite.
On August 13, 2015, the Step-I grievance responder, ARUS Beak, denied Plaintiff's first grievance (IBC 1508-2164-15A), on the grounds that a grievance could not be filed before the administrative hearing process was complete. Beak concluded that, because the mail rejection was still pending, Plaintiff's grievance did not raise a valid issue. On August 20, 2015, Plaintiff appealed the grievance to Step II. He submitted his Step-III appeal on September 2, 2015. The Step-III grievance was denied on December 31, 2016.
Plaintiff was called to the control center on August 26, 2015 to meet with Defendant Edwards about Plaintiff's third grievance (IBC 1508-2320-15A). Plaintiff told Edwards that he had a constitutional right to have his pictures held by the institution until Plaintiff had completed the grievance process. Edwards told Plaintiff that, in accordance with the hearing decision, Plaintiff's pictures would be destroyed unless they were picked up or mailed back to the sender. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Edwards' statement violated prison policy. Plaintiff received Defendant Edwards' Step-I grievance response on August 27, 2015. In her response, Edwards stated thatPlaintiff's photographs would be destroyed unless Plaintiff completed a disbursement form authorizing them to be returned to sender. Plaintiff filed a Step-II grievance appeal on September 2, 2015. Defendant Trierweiler responded to Plaintiff's Step-II appeal on September 9, 2015. Trierweiler concluded that the Step-I response was adequate and appropriate. Plaintiff filed his Step-III appeal on September 15, 2015. The Step-III grievance was denied on March 15, 2016.
On August 25, 2015, Defendant Robinson sent a memorandum to Plaintiff, threatening to place Plaintiff on modified grievance access3 if he filed another grievance. Defendant Trierweiler placed Plaintiff on modified grievance access on August 26, 2015. Plaintiff complains that the grievance restriction was retaliatory and violated his First, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Plaintiff wrote to Defendant Trierweiler on September 3, 2015, complaining that his placement on modified grievance access was hindering his ability to exhaust his administrative remedies. Plaintiff claims that Defendants Robinson and Vroman also were placed on notice of Plaintiff's objections.
Defendant Wright conducted a Step-I review of Plaintiff's second grievance (IBC 1508-2203-07A) on September 10, 2015. Wright told Plaintiff that he had seen the rejected pictures, that he did not see anything indecent about them, and that, if he had reviewed the mail rejection, he would have allowed the pictures. Wright advised Plaintiff, however, that officials above Wright had already determined not to allow them into the facility. Wright also agreed with Plaintiff that bigger women who wore the same outfits as thinner women did not look the same and were thereforetreated differently. Wright also explained that the laws of Ionia County were different from MDOC policy. Wright denied Plaintiff his pictures. Wright agreed to indicate on his grievance response that the pictures would be held while Plaintiff completed his appeals through Step III. Wright issued his response on September 14, 2015. Plaintiff alleges that he appealed the denial to Step II by writing Defendant Trierweiler and informing him that Plaintiff had a right to have his property held until he completed administrative reviews and that Defendant Trierweiler would violate Plaintiff's constitutional rights if he allowed the property to be destroyed. Defendants Vroman and Trierweiler allegedly gave a retaliatory response to the Step-II grievance. They concurred with Wright's Step-I grievance denial and quoted the dictionary definition of "buttocks" to support their finding that the photos showed an exposed buttocks. They also stated that the photos continued to be held and would be held until Plaintiff completed his Step-III review. But they indicated that, because the grievance concerned the same issues raised in Plaintiff's other grievances, his continuing efforts to pursue his grievance to Step III could result in a continuation of Plaintiff's placement on modified grievance access. Plaintiff appealed to Step III on October 15, 2015, indicating that he wanted the photos preserved for his anticipated federal-court action. The Step-III grievance was denied on March 22, 2016. Plaintiff complains that he was never given further notice about the status of his photographs and was never given another opportunity to mail them back.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have engaged in acts of racial discrimination, ethnic intimidation, racial profiling, humiliation, and denial of equal protection by rejecting non-nude photographs of Plaintiff's African-American female friend. He also alleges that the photographs were rejected in violation of prison policy and the First, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, together with declaratory...
To continue reading
Request your trial