Flournoy v. Hemingway

Decision Date18 May 2021
Docket NumberCase No. 20-13130
PartiesMICHAEL FLOURNOY, Plaintiff, v. JONATHAN HEMINGWAY, et al., Defendants.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Michigan)
OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT, DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, AND ACCESS TO ELECTRONIC FILING, AND TERMINATING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

This is a federal prisoner's pro se civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff Michael Flournoy, who has paid the filing fee in full, is confined at the Milan Federal Correctional Institution in Milan, Michigan. Plaintiff claims the warden and other corrections staff at FCI Milan retaliated against him when he requested the correction of his security level classification and transfer to a minimum security federal correctional facility, and that the retaliation continued in response to his grievances and complaints. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, and compensatory and punitive damages.

Plaintiff has moved for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order (ECF Nos. 5, 10), as well as access to the court's electronic filing system for pro se litigators. (ECF Nos. 6, 9.) Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 11.) Because Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the complaint will be dismissed and Plaintiff's motions will be denied. The court will terminate Defendants' motion to dismiss as moot.

I. BACKGROUND

The following facts are either alleged in Plaintiff's complaint or established in the judicial record. At the pleading stage, the court accepts Plaintiff's factual allegations as true but makes no overt finding as to truth or falsity. Hill v. Snyder, 878 F.3d 193, 203 (6th Cir. 2017).

In November 2019, Plaintiff Michael Flournoy requested the recalculation of his security level classification to reflect a correction to his criminal history. (ECF No. 1, PageID.10-11, Complaint.) Plaintiff's custody level was reduced from "low" to "minimum," and he sought a transfer from FCI Milan to a lower level security facility. (Id.) When Plaintiff's requests were not met, he filed a mandamus complaint in this court against FCI Milan Warden Jonathan Hemingway. (Case No. 20-10496, ECF No. 1.) That case was dismissed on October 2, 2020. (Case No. 20-10496, ECF No. 34.)

In the current suit, Plaintiff alleges that while litigating the mandamus action, he suffered violations of his First Amendment rights in the form of retaliation, denial of his right to file grievances, and a campaign of harassment. He also contends that he was denied his right to due process under the Fifth Amendment. Plaintiff seeks both damages and injunctive relief. He names as defendants Warden Hemingway; Assistant Warden Fournelle; Cynthia Suydam, legal assistant; Unit Managers Vaughn and Huddleston; Lieutenants Lachman and Dickman; Case Manager Ryan Lea; Correctional Counselor C. Ellison; Chambers, a correctional officer of unknown rank; Unit SecretaryRomero-Licita; Unknown Regional Admin Remedy Coordinator; and an Unknown Correctional Officer.

Following the reclassification of Plaintiff's security level and his request for placement in a minimum-security facility, on December 3, 2019, Defendant Lea allegedly threatened Plaintiff that Defendant Lea would increase Plaintiff's security level if he insisted on the transfer. (ECF No. 1, PageID.11.) Plaintiff attempted to grieve Lea's actions, but Defendant Ellison allegedly refused to provide Plaintiff with a grievance form. (Id.) Plaintiff was able to obtain the forms from others and filed two complaints through the Bureau of Prisons' ("BOP") "sensitive submission" grievance procedure. (Id. at PageID.11-12.) Defendant Unknown Regional Administrative Remedy Coordinator ("Regional Coordinator") denied Plaintiff's grievances against Lea and Ellison. (Id. at PageID.12.) The Regional Coordinator made FCI Milan aware of Plaintiff's "sensitive" grievances, and instructed Plaintiff to file his complaint with FCI Milan directly. (Id.)

On January 2, 2020, Defendants Lea, Unit Manager Huddleston, and Warden Hemingway obtained a change to Plaintiff's security classification that increased Plaintiff's security level back to "low." (Id. at PageID.12) Plaintiff alleges that the change was in retaliation for Plaintiff's complaints to the regional office and that the form contained "knowingly false information." (Id.)

Plaintiff resubmitted his complaints against Defendants Lea and Ellison to Hemingway. (Id.) On January 11, after that resubmission, Defendant Ellison allegedly called Plaintiff to his office and attempted to intimidate Plaintiff into stopping further complaints. (Id. at PageID.13.) On January 23, 2020, Plaintiff emailed Defendants Hemingway and Suydam, complaining of harassment. (Id.) On February 23, DefendantLea, Plaintiff's case manager, told him not to ask for anything from him until his next review in July. (Id.)

Plaintiff filed the mandamus action on February 26, 2020, naming Hemingway as the sole defendant. In that action, he alleged that by keeping Plaintiff at FCI Milan, Defendant Hemingway was not complying with BOP policies. (Case No. 20-10496, ECF No. 1, PageID.2.) The complaint included allegations of retaliation for his efforts to be transferred. (Id. at PageID.3.)

In the current suit, Plaintiff alleges that after the mandamus action was filed, Defendants interfered with his ability to litigate that case by denying him documents to which he was entitled or providing the documents too late to use in the mandamus action. (Case No. 20-13130, ECF No. 1, PageID.14-15.) According to Plaintiff, in one instance when he sought needed documentation, Defendants Ellison and Lea accused him of lying and issued a disciplinary report for Plaintiff's behavior. (Id. at PageID.15.) Plaintiff contends that in this time period, Defendant Hemingway either did not respond to his complaints or answered in a manner that "validated" and "fueled" further retaliation. (Id. at PageID.14-15.)

Plaintiff alleges that on April 29, 2020, in retaliation for grievances he filed against Defendants Ellison and Lea, Ellison caused another inmate to plant contraband in Plaintiff's cell. (Id. at PageID.18-19; ECF No. 1-2, PageID.96.) This resulted in Plaintiff being strip-searched and his cell "trashed" by Defendants "Unknown C/O," Romero-Licita, and Dickman. (Id. at PageID.19.) Nothing was found, and Plaintiff received no disciplinary consequences. Plaintiff emailed Defendant Hemingway about the incident. (ECF No. 1-2, PageID.96.)

Plaintiff emailed Defendant Hemingway again at least four times on May 12, 2020, complaining about Defendant Ellison. (ECF No. 1-2, PageID.97-100.) On May 13, Plaintiff filed grievances against Defendant Ellison in front of him, despite Ellison's attempts at intimidation and refusal to accept one of the grievances. (ECF No. 1, PageID.20-21.) Plaintiff emailed Defendant Hemingway another four times on May 13, after he submitted the complaints. (ECF No. 1-2, PageID.101-02; ECF No. 1-3, PageID.105-06.) In his emails, Plaintiff repeatedly asserted Defendant Ellison should be removed from his position.

On May 13, after Plaintiff had filed and emailed his complaints about Defendant Ellison, Defendants Lt. Dickman and Lt. Lachman allegedly instructed Plaintiff not to go near Ellison or Plaintiff would be sent to segregation. (ECF No. 1, at PageID.21.) Defendant Ellison had accused Plaintiff of creating a hostile environment for him. (Id. at PageID.22.) Plaintiff was directed by the lieutenants to sign a form acknowledging receipt of the letter describing the harassment and warning that he could receive an incident report for stalking if he did not refrain from future such behavior. (Id. at PageID.21-22; ECF No. 1-3, PageID.107.) Plaintiff contends this further obstructed his ability to complain about the misconduct of prison officials. On May 14, 2020, Plaintiff emailed Defendant Hemingway again, requesting a cell move as a result of the stalking claim. (ECF No. 1-4, PageID.132.)

Plaintiff complained to Defendants Hemingway, Fournelle, and Vaughn about not receiving responses to his grievances in time for him to respond to them. (ECF No. 1, PageID.23-24.) He states those Defendants ordered Plaintiff not to use the grievance process. (Id. at PageID.24.) Throughout the time period that Plaintiff states he wasunable to file grievances, he communicated via email to Defendants Hemingway, Fournelle, and Suydam, among others. He also submitted complaints to the Regional Coordinator.

II. STANDARD

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), the court is required to dismiss a prisoner's complaint if it determines that the action 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. Flanory v. Bonn, 604 F.3d 249, 252 (6th Cir. 2010) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e), 1915A(b); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)). The screening requirement extends to all prisoner civil cases, whether fee-paid or in forma pauperis, "as the statute does not differentiate between civil actions brought by prisoners." In re Prison Litigation Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131, 1134 (6th Cir. 1997). A complaint is frivolous "where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). It is "subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim if the allegations, taken as true, show the plaintiff is not entitled to relief." Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007).

When evaluating a complaint under PLRA standards, courts "construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true, and examine whether the complaint contains 'sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'"...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT