Meeks v. Mich. Dep't of Corr.

• Decision Date: 17 September 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:20-cv-839
• Parties: ANTHONY MEEKS, Plaintiff, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

ANTHONY MEEKS, Plaintiff, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al., Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-839

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

September 17, 2020

Honorable Janet T. Neff

OPINION

This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (PLRA), 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, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's complaint because the claims raised are legally frivolous or fail to state a claim.

Discussion

I. Factual allegations

Plaintiff is presently incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) at the G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility (JCF) in Jackson, Jackson County, Michigan. The events about which he complains, however, occurred at the Gus Harrison Correctional Facility (ARF) in Adrian, Lenawee County, Michigan.

Plaintiff's complaint names the following Defendants:

1. the MDOC, its Director Heidi Washington, ARF Warden S. Campbell, ARF Corrections Officer Unknown Monroe, and ARF Sergeant Unknown Muhr (herein, collectively, the MDOC Defendants);

2. Ingham County Circuit Court John or Jane Doe, Ingham County Circuit Court Administrator Shauna Dunning, and Ingham County Circuit Court Clerk Michael G. Lewycky (herein, collectively, the ICCC Defendants);

3. Michigan Court of Appeals Chief Judge Christopher Murray, Michigan Court of Appeals Presiding Judge Patrick M. Meter, and Michigan Court of Appeals Chief Clerk Jerome W. Zimmer Jr. (herein, collectively, the MCOA Defendants);

4. Michigan Supreme Court Justice Bridget M. McCormack, Michigan Supreme Court Justice John or Jane Doe; and Michigan Supreme Court Clerk Larry S. Royster (herein, collectively, the MSC Defendants).

(Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.1-3.) Each individual Defendant is sued in his or her official and individual capacities.

Plaintiff alleges that on December 11, 2017, while he was incarcerated at ARF, Defendant Monroe, at Defendant Muhr's request, wrote a major misconduct report against him for substance abuse. On December 13, 2017, Defendant Muhr added a charge of smuggling coffee. Following a hearing, Plaintiff was found not guilty of substance abuse, but guilty of smuggling. Plaintiff claims that as a result of being found guilty for a major misconduct, Defendant Campbell forfeited over six months of disciplinary credits. Plaintiff describes that event as adding six months to his sentence.

Plaintiff sought a rehearing, but his request was denied. Then, Plaintiff attempted to file an appeal in the Ingham County Circuit Court. His appeal papers were returned by the court with a letter under the indecipherable signature of a law clerk. (May 3, 2018 Correspondence, ECF No. 1, PageID.9.) The clerk noted that Plaintiff still owed fees from another case file andthat "'[a] prisoner who has failed to pay outstanding fees and costs as required . . . shall not commence a new civil action or appeal until the outstanding fees and costs have been paid.'" (Id.) (quoting Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2963(8)).

Plaintiff asked for reconsideration. The Court responded with correspondence from Defendant Lewycky, a law clerk. (ECF No. 1, PageID.10.) Lewycky informed Plaintiff that his appeal could not be filed under Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2963(8). Plaintiff waited almost a year before he filed a delayed application for leave to appeal the circuit court's resolution of his appeal. By order entered April 16, 2019, Defendant Murray dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the May 3, 2018 letter was not a judgment or order of the circuit court that could be the subject of an application for leave to appeal. (Mich. Ct. App. Order, ECF No. 1, PageID.11.) Defendant Murray explained further that even if the letter were considered an order, the application was untimely. (Id.) The order was entered and certified by Defendant Zimmer.

Plaintiff sought reconsideration. A panel including Defendant Meter, Judge Kirsten Frank Kelly, and Judge James Robert Redford denied reconsideration, but noted that the denial and the dismissal of Plaintiff's application for leave to appeal did not preclude Plaintiff from filing an original complaint for writ of superintending control in the court of appeals. (Mich. Ct. App. Order, ECF No. 1, PageID.12.) Again, Defendant Zimmer entered and certified the order. (Id.)

Plaintiff then filed an application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court. That Court denied leave by order entered July 29, 2019. (Mich. Order, ECF No. 1, PageID.13.) The order lists all seven justices of the supreme court, but Plaintiff sued only Defendant McCormack. (Id.) The order was entered and certified by Defendant Royster. (Id.)

Plaintiff claims the Ingham County Circuit Court denied him his First Amendment rights, presumably of access to the courts. Plaintiff also contends that the misconduct finding that,in Plaintiff's words, added six months to his sentence, deprived him of life, liberty, property, and freedom, presumably without due process of law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff also makes reference to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and he claims these circumstances violated his Sixth Amendment rights.

Plaintiff asks this Court to declare that Defendants have violated his constitutional rights, to reverse the finding of guilt on the misconduct and restore the six months of disciplinary credit that was forfeited, to determine that the state courts' applications of Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2963(8) is unconstitutional, and to compel the state courts to read Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2963 in its entirety so as to permit Plaintiff to pursue his appeals. Plaintiff does not seek damages.

Plaintiff initially filed his complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. That court denied Plaintiff in forma pauperis status based on the erroneous conclusion that Plaintiff had accumulated three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and dismissed the case for failure to pay the filing fee. Plaintiff appealed and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that one of the strikes relied upon by the district court was not a strike. The court reversed the "three strike" determination and the dismissal and remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

The district court then partially dismissed the complaint—specifically, the claims against the MDOC Defendants, including all of the claims against the Defendants residing in the Eastern District of Michigan—and transferred the remainder of the complaint to this Court as a more convenient forum.

II. In forma pauperis status

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan noted that Plaintiff was allowed to proceed without prepayment of fees (Op., ECF No. 11, PageID.70), but itdid not order the payment of fees over time as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997). The documents Plaintiff filed in support of motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) establish his indigence are now more than a year old and do not provide timely information to permit computation of an initial partial filing fee. In lieu of requiring Plaintiff to update his trust account statement, the Court will simply proceed as if Plaintiff did not have sufficient funds to require payment of an initial partial filing fee. The Court will enter an order granting Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) and ordering the payment of the filing fee over time.

III. Reconsideration of the dismissal of the MDOC Defendants

Under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a non-final order is subject to reconsideration at any time before entry of a final judgment. Id.; see also ACLU v. McCreary Cty., 607 F.3d 439, 450 (6th Cir. 2010). Reconsideration is appropriate when there is "a palpable defect . . . [and] that a different disposition of the case must result from a correction thereof." Id.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed Plaintiff's claims against the MDOC because that department is not a "person" under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and because the MDOC was immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. The court dismissed the other MDOC Defendants, however, because the court concluded that Plaintiff's claims were barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). The court's conclusion, however, appears to be based on a faulty premise. The court addressed Plaintiff's loss as a loss of "good time" credits. (Op., ECF No. 11, PageID. 72) ("Plaintiff's challenges to his misconduct hearing and the resultant loss of any 'good time' credits would affect the length of his sentence and are thus barred by Edwards and Heck."). Plaintiff, however, was not eligible to earn "good time" credits.

Plaintiff was convicted and sentenced in 1994. See https://mdocweb.state.mi.us/OTIS2/otis2profile.aspx?mdocNumber=176401 (visited Sept. 10, 2020). "Good time" credits, however, are only available to prisoners who are serving sentences for crimes committed before April 1, 1987. Mich. Comp. Laws § 800.33(2). Prisoners who are serving sentences for crimes committed on or after that date, such as Plaintiff, are eligible to earn disciplinary or special disciplinary credits. Mich. Comp. Laws § 800.33.¹ In Thomas v. Eby, 481 F.3d 434 (6th Cir. 2007), the court determined...