Phillips-Addis v. Bottrell

• Decision Date: 02 December 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:20-cv-620
• Parties: ANDREW J. PHILLIPS-ADDIS, Plaintiff, v. NOAH BOTTRELL et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

ANDREW J. PHILLIPS-ADDIS, Plaintiff, v. NOAH BOTTRELL et al., Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-620

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

December 2, 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 for failure to state a claim against Defendants MacEachern, Weller, and Parish. The Court will also dismiss, for failure to state a claim, Plaintiff's claim against Defendants Bottrell, Ward, and Best for interference with access to the courts. Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Bottrell, Ward, and Best for First Amendment retaliation and Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Best for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment remain.

Discussion

I. Factual Allegations

Plaintiff is presently incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) at the Oaks Correctional Facility (ECF) in Manistee, Manistee County, Michigan. The events about which he complains occurred at that facility. Plaintiff sues ECF Correctional Officers Noah Bottrell, Unknown Best, and D. Weller; ECF Sergeant Unknown Ward; ECF Warden Les Parish; and Director Ken MacEachern.

During the last fourteen months, Plaintiff has filed eight civil actions in this Court, four habeas petitions and four civil rights actions. With the exception of Plaintiff's first habeas petition, there is substantial overlap in the facts underlying each of Plaintiff's petitions and complaints. Each of Plaintiff's cases bears some relationship to this one; therefore, the Court will provide some information regarding each case.

Plaintiff filed his initial habeas petition on October 24, 2019. Phillips-Addis v. Parish, No. 1:19-cv-905 (W.D. Mich.) (herein Phillips-Addis Habeas I). The Court described the facts relating to that petition as follows:

Petitioner pleaded guilty in the Delta County Circuit Court to assault with intent to do great bodily harm (AGBH), in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.84. On November 6, 2017, the court sentenced Petitioner as a third habitual offender, Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.11, to a prison term of 8 to 20 years.

* * *

On July 27, 2017, Petitioner was housed in the Delta County Jail. The victim, Nathan Gartland, was housed there as well. Gartland was laying on his back on seats by a table. Petitioner walked over to him with a towel, placed the towel around Gartland's neck, pulled Garland to the ground, and dragged Gartland by the towel to the door. The incident was captured on camera. Petitioner acknowledged at his plea hearing that he "wrapped a towel around Nathan Gartland's neck, tried to kill him." (Id., PageID.82.)

Petitioner entered a nolo contendere plea to the charge. But, after he entered his plea and before he was sentenced, he claimed that he and Gartland staged the entireassault. Petitioner staged the assault to avoid extradition to Wisconsin. The staged assault "was to force the state of Michigan justice system [to] stop [Petitioner from] going back to Wisconsin state prison system." (Am. Pet., ECF No. 3, PageID.35.) The entire "crime" was "actually [a] fraud on Michigan state and Wisconsin States justice system." (Id.) The goal was to "force[] Delta County [to] make him . . . stay in the state of Michigan." (Id.)

After Petitioner's plea, however, he disclosed the plot to the court and prosecutor by way of a letter. Petitioner's disclosures in the letter forced the court, the prosecutor, and Petitioner's counsel, to reconsider further proceedings in the case. The prosecutor "gave [Petitioner] a chance to withdraw the false case and . . . drop [the] false charges, but then [Petitioner would . . . lose his discharge from [the] Wisconsin case . . . ." (Id., PageID.39.) Petitioner could not abide that result because his "life was at risk in Wisconsin state [prison] system, due [to] gang [problems.]" (Id.)

Petitioner's counsel knew that Petitioner was hoping to get at least a five-year sentence in Michigan because Petitioner felt that with a sentence that long, Wisconsin would drop its hold on him. (Id., PageID.57, 67.) After Petitioner disclosed the fraud, he informed his counsel that he wanted to go forward with sentencing anyway. (Id., PageID.65-66.) In Petitioner's letter(s) to the court and prosecutor, he disclosed additional crimes, in addition to the fraud he had perpetrated on the court. (Id., PageID.68-70.) Counsel advised Petitioner that, should Petitioner withdraw his plea in the pending case, he might face a potential life sentence because of his criminal history; and, in addition, he might face prosecution for perjury. (Id.)

Counsel offered to withdraw . . . Counsel acknowledged that he had seen the video recording of the assault; but, he did not review it after Petitioner disclosed the concoction or interview Gartland to confirm Petitioner's story. (Id., PageID.72-76.) Because counsel believed Petitioner wanted to go forward with sentencing—and Petitioner's representations in his habeas submissions support that belief—Petitioner went forward with the sentencing. But, "after sentencing was done and Wisconsin started [their] end of letting [Petitioner be] discharged . . . [, Petitioner] wanted to back out [of] the state of Michigan deals . . . ." (Id.) Indeed, he hoped to "gain money out [of] the dealings of the fraud." (Id.) He secured the appointment of appellate counsel.

Appellate counsel moved to withdraw Petitioner's plea. The trial court held a hearing, and rejected Petitioner's claim. The court ruled that the plea proceeding itself was error free. (Id., PageID.93.) Counsel had done nothing wrong up to and including the plea proceeding. (Id.) The trial court found further "that [Petitioner's counsel's] performance was at or above an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms and there [was] no reasonable probability that an error was committed for the Court to conclude that the results of the proceedings would have been different." (Id., PageID.94.)

Phillips-Addis Habeas I (Op., ECF No. 7, PageID.188-190.)¹

Plaintiff filed his second habeas petition on May 11, 2020. Phillips-Addis v. Whitmer, No. 1:20-cv-443 (W.D. Mich.) (Phillips-Addis Habeas II). That petition was not related to the constitutionality of his conviction. Instead, he complained that he—and other prisoners—were being tested for COVID-19 without their consent. The undersigned determined that Plaintiff challenged only the conditions of his confinement and that his claims "'f[e]ll outside the cognizable core of habeas corpus relief.'" Phillips-Addis Habeas II (Op., ECF No. 4, PageID.17.) The petition was dismissed without prejudice on June 2, 2020.

Plaintiff responded by filing the instant civil rights complaint on July 6, 2020. Phillips-Addis v. Bottrell et al., No. 1:20-cv-620 (W.D. Mich.) (Phillips-Addis Civil Rights I). Plaintiff's complaint is difficult to follow. It purports to be a "registration of [a] judgment to form a lien action." Phillips-Addis Civil Rights I (Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.1.) That, in turn, appears to follow from an order of this Court dated December 16, 2019. (Order, ECF No. 1-2, PageID.30.) By way of that order, the Court rejected a series of difficult-to-decipher documents that appeared to be attempts at lien enforcement. The Court noted the steps Plaintiff should take if, indeed, he were attempting to register a judgment to enforce a lien. Plaintiff took that as a direction from the Court to file an action to register a judgment. As far as the Court can determine from Plaintiff's voluminous pleadings in his eight actions in this Court, however, Plaintiff has not obtained a judgment against any person or entity in any court that might be registered for enforcement in this Court.

Three days after he filed his civil rights complaint, Plaintiff filed his third habeas petition. Phillips-Addis v. Parish et al., No. 1:20-cv-631 (W.D. Mich.) (Phillips-Addis HabeasIII). The "petition" names several Respondents, including Les Parish, Noah Bottrell, and Sergeant Ward. It includes many of the same factual allegations as the instant complaint. Some of the allegations in the instant complaint are understandable only because of documents Plaintiff attached to this habeas petition. See, e.g., Phillips-Addis Habeas III, (July 1, 2020, Jpay Correspondence, ECF No. 1-4, PageID.31.) By order entered July 28, 2020, the Court transferred the petition to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals because it was second or successive.

Six days after Plaintiff filed his third habeas petition, he filed his fourth. Phillips-Addis v. Bottrell et al., No. 1:20-cv-661 (W.D. Mich.) (Phillips-Addis Habeas IV). The fourth petition names as Respondents Sergeant Ward as well as Correctional Officers Bottrell and Best. It includes many of the same factual allegations that are part of Plaintiff's first civil rights complaint. By order entered July 27, 2020, the Court transferred the petition to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals because it was second or successive.

Plaintiff waited one week after filing his fourth habeas action before filing his next civil rights action. On July 22, 2020, he filed a new civil rights complaint. Phillips-Addis v. Haske et al., No. 1:20-cv-686 (W.D. Mich.) (Phillips-Addis Civil Rights II)....