Sanders v. Washington

• Decision Date: 16 October 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:20-cv-889
• Citation: Sanders v. Washington, Case No. 1:20-cv-889 (W.D. Mich. Oct 16, 2020)
• Parties: JASON L. SANDERS, Plaintiff, v. HEIDI E. WASHINGTON et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

JASON L. SANDERS, Plaintiff, v. HEIDI E. WASHINGTON et al., Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-889

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

October 16, 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, seeHaines 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 Washington, John or Jane Doe Black, John or Jane Doe Grey, Warfield, Jennings, McCauley, and Thompson.Additionally, the Court will dismiss for failure to state a claim all of Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Minnick except the following: (1)Plaintiff's equal protection claim arising out of the MSOP homework mandatory group meeting on July 30, 2020; and (2)Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim arising out of Defendant Minnick's June 2020 threat to delay Plaintiff's completion of MSOP if he files grievances.

Discussion

I.Factual Allegations

Plaintiff is presently incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections(MDOC) at the Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility (IBC) in Ionia, Ionia County, Michigan.The events about which he complains occurred while Plaintiff was housed at that facility.

Plaintiff sues MDOC Director Heidi E. Washington, MDOC C.F.A. Coordinator John or Jane Doe Black, MDOC Bureau of Health Care Services Coordinator John or Jane Doe Grey, Michigan Parole Board Members Jerome L. Warfield, Sr. and Melissa K. Jennings, IBC Warden Unknown McCauley, IBC Social Worker Unknown Minnick, and IBC Assistant Residential Unit Supervisor Unknown Thompson.The Defendants, with the exception of Minnick and Thompson are sued in their official and personal capacities.Minnick and Thompson are sued only in their personal capacities.

Plaintiff's complaint concerns his prospects of parole and the programs he has been asked to complete in anticipation of parole, including the Michigan Sex Offender Program (MSOP).Information regarding Plaintiff's sentences provides useful background in understanding his claims.Plaintiff pleaded guilty in the Ionia County Circuit Court to malicious destruction of personal property valued at $1,000 to $20,000, in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.377a.On September 2, 2008, the court sentenced Plaintiff to a sentence of 1 to 5 years, to be served consecutively to sentences Plaintiff was serving either in prison or on parole when he committed the malicious-destruction crime.Those sentences include a sentence of 2 to 20 years imposed by the Oakland County Circuit Court on November 8, 2000, for armed robbery following Plaintiff's guilty plea to that offense, and a sentence of 1 year, 6 months to 22 years, 6 monthsimposed by the Oakland County Circuit Court on September 5, 2000, for second-degree home invasion following Plaintiff's guilty plea to that offense.

The Michigan Department of Corrections reports that Plaintiff's earliest release date was September 1, 2009, and his maximum discharge date is June 16, 2025.See https://mdocweb.state.mi.us/OTIS2/otis2profile.aspx?mdocNumber=305405 (visited October 8, 2020).Those dates suggest that the Oakland County sentences are concurrent to each other and that the Ionia County sentence is consecutive to the Oakland County sentences.The Ionia County Circuit Court case details, available at https://micourt.courts.michigan.gov/casesearch/Terms?ReturnUrl=%2Fcasesearch%2FCourt%2FC08~1%2FSearch%3FSearchText%3Djason%2Bsanders (visited October 8, 2020), expressly state that the Ionia sentence is consecutive to Plaintiff's other sentences.

Pursuant to Michigan Department of Corrections policy directive, "if an offender is serving consecutive sentences, none of the sentences that are part of the consecutive string shall be terminated until all sentences in that string have been served."Michigan Department of Corrections Policy Directive 03.01.135 (eff. Apr. 15, 2019).Working backward from Plaintiff's maximum discharge date, it is apparent that the only sentence remaining to be served is Plaintiff's sentence for malicious destruction of property.Although Plaintiff has not been discharged from his other sentences, and they have not been terminated, it appears they have expired; he has already served the maximum sentence.

None of Plaintiff's crimes are sex offenses; however, he acknowledges that he has collected 300 tickets during his incarceration and "many of them [are] sexual misconducts (verbal) and (exposure) on female staff from 2008 to 2017."(Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.6)As a result of the misconducts, Plaintiff reports that he received over 6 years-worth of loss-of-privileges,detention, and segregation time, as well as continuances from the parole board.(Id.)On a more positive note, since 2017, when Plaintiff completed the Violence Prevention Program (VPP), he claims he has received no misconducts, sexual or otherwise.(Id.)

During the spring of 2019, Defendants Warfield and Jennings evaluated Plaintiff for parole.Defendant Warfield was concerned about the number of tickets Plaintiff had earned.Warfield suggested that he would grant parole if Plaintiff would agree to participate in a sex-offender treatment program following his parole.Plaintiff readily agreed.Warfield requested a psychological evaluation.Plaintiff was continued for another 12 months, despite Warfield's promises.

On December 12, 2019, after Plaintiff's security level had been decreased, he was directed to complete MSOP at IBC in order to gain parole.He was moved to the cellblock that housed the sex-offenders to facilitate his completion of that requirement.

On January 31, 2020, Plaintiff completed the first stage of the MSOP.He was told that he had to complete the MSOP group therapy stage as well.Defendant Minnick placed Plaintiff on "high" status, which required 12 to 18 months in the program, even though the program screen said "medium" status, which required 6 to 12 months.Because of the duration of the "high" status program and the timing of parole decisions, Plaintiff posits that the MSOP added 29 months to his incarceration.

During April 2020, Defendants Jennings and Warfield reviewed Plaintiff again.Plaintiff reports they told him he did not deserve parole due to his misconducts.Plaintiff also reports that Defendants Thompson, McCauley, and Minnick said the parole board agreed that Plaintiff would remain in prison until he completed MSOP.

Plaintiff grieved the parole board, the CFA, the mental health care staff, and the Bureau of Healthcare Services.He claims that because of that grievance, he was kicked out of his original MSOP group.Plaintiff acknowledges, however, that he was kicked out "under the guise that he was squeezing a homosexual pedophile in group therapy."(Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.12.)Plaintiff claims "defendants" told him that he would not be going home when he completed group therapy, but that he would be ordered to start all over again because of his grievances and that if he kept writing grievances, his group therapy would be extended to his maximum release date.

On July 30, 2020, Plaintiff was kept late at work and, as a result, was late for MSOP homework group.Defendant Minnick told the group that they would be required to write an essay on why members should not be late for group.¹Plaintiff is black.Plaintiff claims a white prisoner, Williams, was also late, but Minnick did not take the same actions or impose the same requirements because of prisoner Williams' tardiness.

Minnick sent Plaintiff to his cell to get his MSOP call-out.While Plaintiff was gone, Minnick prodded the remaining group members to contemplate the impact Plaintiff's tardiness had on them.Minnick told them she would turn her head and let them deal with Plaintiff as a group.When Plaintiff returned, he was verbally attacked.Later, a couple of the group members assaulted Plaintiff.

Plaintiff reports that at the end of August 2020, Defendant Minnick cancelled the MSOP indefinitely, presumably because of the COVID-19 virus.

Plaintiff contends that it is arbitrary to penalize him for misconducts by requiring him to participate in MSOP when he was already punished for those misconducts.Plaintiffcontends it is also a violation of MDOC policy, the Double Jeopardy Clause, due process, equal protection, and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.Plaintiff claims that MSOP facilitators give positive MSOP termination reports to white prisoners twenty times more than those facilitators do for black and Latino prisoners.

Plaintiff seeks a judgment declaring that Defendants have violated his constitutional rights, injunctive relief against Defendant McCauley that requires him to produce criteria for participation in MSOP; precludes him from placing prisoners in MSOP who are not sex offenders or otherwise do not meet the criteria; and compels him to replace the facilitators and officers in the sex-offender unit on first shift and to change the operation of the MSOP program.Plaintiff also seeks tens of thousands of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages.

II.Failure to State a Claim

A complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it fails "'to give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'"Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550...