Opinion
Case No. 96-CV-72419-DT
February 6, 2002
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SHOW SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)
On June 11, 1996, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants alleging a violation of federal constitutional rights. On January 4, 2000, this Court issued an Opinion and Order granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff appealed this Court's Order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On August 7, 2001, the Sixth Circuit ruled that this Court should not have entered an order granting summary judgment but rather, this Court should have dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint, without prejudice because he had not demonstrated that he had exhausted all his administrative remedies prior to filing suit as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). See Muhammad v. Martens, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 18108 (6th Cir. 2001). On September 6, 2001, this Court issued an Order Dismissing Complaint Without Prejudice, in order to give Plaintiff an opportunity to demonstrate that he has substantially complied with the exhaustion requirements under § 1997e(a).
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Show Substantial Compliance. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's Motion shall be denied.
DISCUSSION
The Sixth Circuit in remanding Plaintiff's case to this Court stated:
After April 26, 1996, the effective date of the PLRA, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) requires that a prisoner must exhaust all of his available remedies before filing a § 1983 action in federal court, see Brown v. Toombs, 139F.3d 1102, 1103-04 (6th Cir. 1998), and the prisoner has the burden of demonstrating that he has exhausted these remedies. See id. at 1104. The prisoner must exhaust his remedies as to all claims arising from his confinement, including excessive force, equal protection, and other constitutional claims. See Hartsfield v. Vidor, 199 F.3d 305, 308 (6th Cir. 1999). The prisoner is required to exhaust even if the only remedy he seeks, e.g., monetary damages, is unavailable in the administrative process. See Booth v. Churner, 121 S.Ct. 1819 (2001). To establish that he has exhausted his administrative remedies prior to filing suit, a prisoner should attach to his § 1983 complaint any decision demonstrating the administrative disposition of his claims. See Wyatt v. Leonard, 193 F.3d 876, 878 (6th Cir. 1999); Brown, 139 F.3d at 1104.
* * *
While the administrative exhaustion requirement set forth in § 1997e(a) applies to Muhammad's case because he filed his complaint after April 26, 1996, he is required only to effect substantial compliance with that section because the events giving rise to his claim occurred before the effective date of the PLRA. See Wolff v. Moore, 199 F.3d 324, 327-29 (6th Cir. 1999); Wyatt, 193 F.3d at 879-80. This means that Muhammad must show that he made a good faith attempt to reach the appropriate prison official or officials in an effort to resolve his complaints internally. See Wolff, 199 F.3d at 327.Muhammad, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 18108 at *3-6.
The Michigan Department of Corrections Policy Directive No. 03.02.130 (MDOC PD) entitled "Prisoner Parolee Grievances" sets forth the procedure for prisoners who wish to file a grievance "for alleged violations of policy and procedure or unsatisfactory conditions of confinement." (Defs.' Resp. Ex. 3, MDOC PD Policy Statement). The MDOC PD provides a three step process for filing grievances, with the initial filing at Step I and progressive appeals at Step II and Step III. ( See Defs.' Resp. Ex. 3, MDOC PD at ¶¶ Z, AA and BB).
Plaintiff, in his Motion, claims "that defendants issued him false misconduct reports for retaliatory reasons, due to plaintiff filing grievances against them, and for the plaintiff not being found guilty of the retaliatory charges." (Pl.'s Mot. at 2). Plaintiff also argues that the exhaustion requirement should not apply to him because these incidents occurred before the enactment of the PLRA. The Sixth Circuit, however, has already held that the exhaustion requirement does apply to Plaintiff, and that he must show he has substantially complied with the requirement. See Muhammad, supra.
Whether these are valid claims under § 1983 is not before the Court at this time.
The MDOC PD specifically states:
[a] grievant shall not be penalized in any way for filing a grievance except as set forth in paragraph N. Staff shall avoid any action that gives the appearance of reprisal for using the grievance procedure or for assisting other grievants in its use. If grievants believe they are subjected to acts of reprisal, they may file a grievance.
(Defs.' Ex. 3, MDOC PD at ¶ K (emphasis added)). Plaintiff has attached to his Motion copies of various grievances, with only three of these grievances mentioning Plaintiff's claims of retaliation. ( See Pl's Ex. H, N, and 5-1).
remanding this case to this Court, the Sixth Circuit cited Wolff v. Moore, 199 F.3d 324 (6th Cir. 1999), and stated that "Muhammad must show that he made a good faith attempt to reach the appropriate prison official or officials in an effort to resolve his complaints internally." Muhammad, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 18108 at *6 (citation omitted). In Wolff the plaintiff had been assaulted by a prison guard. See Wolff, 199 F.3d at 326. Although the plaintiff had not used the grievance procedure in place, the court found that he had met the exhaustion requirement because he "promptly reported the incident to an appropriate prison official, thereby instigating the commencement of the use of force internal investigation." Id. at 328 n. 4. As a result of this reporting by the plaintiff in Wolff there were four investigations into the incident. Id. at 328.
There were two defendants in Wolff One defendant was directly investigated by the officials, and the court held that through these investigations the officials were put on notice about the actions of the other defendant therefore, the plaintiffs actions substantially complied with the exhaustion requirements for his claims against both defendants. See id. at 328.
In this action, Plaintiff names four Defendants. As set forth above, before Plaintiff may file this action, Plaintiff must demonstrate that he has "substantially complied" with the requirement that he exhaust all of his administrative remedies prior to filing as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). With respect to Defendants Martens, Fredericks, and Pratt-Stevens, Plaintiff has provided no documentation that he put the Defendants on notice or "made a good faith attempt to reach the appropriate prison official or officials in an effort to resolve his complaint internally." Muhammad, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 18108 at *6.
The record presented to this Court does not reveal any grievances filed against these three individuals indicating that they in any way retaliated against Plaintiff for any conduct or previous grievances filed by Plaintiff
In fact, Plaintiff has attached to his motion, copies of various grievances, but only three of these grievances mention Plaintiff's claims of retaliation (see Pl.'s Exs. H, N, and S-1). Plaintiff's Exhibit H does not mention any of the named Defendants.
Plaintiffs Exhibit N is a grievance filed on 10/17/95, alleging retaliation by Defendant Barber. However, that Exhibit also contains the response on 11/7/95 to this grievance. There is no indication in this record that Plaintiff in any way, challenged or appealed the response to this grievance.
The last grievance in the record before this Court discussing retaliation did not mention any of the named Defendants and was, in fact, resolved at the Step II appeal. ( See Pl.'s Ex. S-1 and S-1(a)).
Although prison officials may have been put on notice of Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Barber by the filing of the grievance mentioning him, Plaintiff's failure to appeal the explanation given for that grievance effectively negated any notice to the prison officials that Plaintiff may have believed the problem had not been resolved. In this Court's opinion, Plaintiff's failure to specifically mention his claims against the remaining Defendants shows that he did not make a good faith effort to bring to the prison officials' attention his claims against them.
Unlike the plaintiff in Wolff Plaintiff's actions here did not put the prison officials on notice regarding Plaintiff's claims against these four Defendants. In this Court's opinion, Plaintiff's Motion and exhibits fail to show that Plaintiff "made a good faith attempt to reach the appropriate prison official or officials in an effort to resolve his complaints internally." Muhammad, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 18108 at *6.
In their Brief in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion, Defendants raise several arguments why Plaintiff's case should be dismissed. Plaintiffs case, however, has been dismissed. Plaintiffs current Motion to Show Substantial Compliance basically seeks reinstatement. Because the Court is denying Plaintiff's Motion, Defendants' arguments for dismissal are moot.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Show Substantial Compliance with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) is DENIED.