×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Placing Prisoner on Modified Grievance Access Held Constitutional Under Circumstances
Placing Prisoner on Modified Grievance Access Held Constitutional Under
Circumstances
The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a Michigan federal
district court's dismissal of a state prisoner's claim that his civil
rights were violated when prison officials placed him on modified
grievance access.
Minyard Cass Davis, a Michigan state prisoner, sued various officials of
the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Davis
claimed that MDOC officials denied him access to the courts by placing him
on modified grievance access and that he was placed on modified access in
retaliation for filing grievances. The district court dismissed for
failure to state a claim, and Davis appealed.
The appeals court held that Davis was not denied access to the courts.
Modified grievance access does not prohibit all filing of grievances. If
Davis is prohibited from filing grievances, then he has no "available"
remedies to exhaust and cannot be barred from filing suit. Further, Davis
had a long history of filing grievances that were rejected for grieving
non-grievable issues, raising multiple issues, being duplicative, or being
meritless. MDOC officials had grounds for placing Davis on modified
grievance access. Also, Davis "failed to show that an adverse action
was taken against him which would deter him from engaging in protected
conduct."
The district court's dismissal was affirmed. This case is published in the
Federal Appendix and is subject to rules governing unpublished cases. See:
Davis v. Martin, 52 Fed.Appx. 717 (6th Cir. 2002).
Circumstances
The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a Michigan federal
district court's dismissal of a state prisoner's claim that his civil
rights were violated when prison officials placed him on modified
grievance access.
Minyard Cass Davis, a Michigan state prisoner, sued various officials of
the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Davis
claimed that MDOC officials denied him access to the courts by placing him
on modified grievance access and that he was placed on modified access in
retaliation for filing grievances. The district court dismissed for
failure to state a claim, and Davis appealed.
The appeals court held that Davis was not denied access to the courts.
Modified grievance access does not prohibit all filing of grievances. If
Davis is prohibited from filing grievances, then he has no "available"
remedies to exhaust and cannot be barred from filing suit. Further, Davis
had a long history of filing grievances that were rejected for grieving
non-grievable issues, raising multiple issues, being duplicative, or being
meritless. MDOC officials had grounds for placing Davis on modified
grievance access. Also, Davis "failed to show that an adverse action
was taken against him which would deter him from engaging in protected
conduct."
The district court's dismissal was affirmed. This case is published in the
Federal Appendix and is subject to rules governing unpublished cases. See:
Davis v. Martin, 52 Fed.Appx. 717 (6th Cir. 2002).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Davis v. Martin
| Year | 2002 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 52 Fed.Appx. 717 (6th Cir. 2002). |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
MINYARD CASS DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BILL MARTIN, Director, Michigan Department of Corrections, et al., in their individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 02-1824
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
52 Fed. Appx. 717; 2002 U.S. App.
December 9, 2002, Filed
NOTICE: [**1] NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION. SIXTH CIRCUIT RULE 28(g) LIMITS CITATION TO SPECIFIC SITUATIONS. PLEASE SEE RULE 28(g) BEFORE CITING IN A PROCEEDING IN A COURT IN THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. IF CITED, A COPY MUST BE SERVED ON OTHER PARTIES AND THE COURT. THIS NOTICE IS TO BE PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED IF THIS DECISION IS REPRODUCED.
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: US Supreme Court certiorari denied by Davis v. Overton, 2003 U.S. (U.S., May 27, 2003)
PRIOR HISTORY: Western District of Michigan. 02-00287. McKeague. 06-07-02.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed.
COUNSEL: MINYARD CASS DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, Pro se, St. Louis, MI.
JUDGES: Before: COLE and CLAY, Circuit Judges; BERTELSMAN, District Judge. *
* The Honorable William O. Bertelsman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation.
OPINION:
[*717] ORDER
Before: COLE and CLAY, Circuit Judges; BERTELSMAN, District Judge. *
* The Honorable William O. Bertelsman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation.
Minyard Cass Davis, a Michigan state prisoner, appeals pro se a district court order dismissing his civil rights [**2] complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for failure to state a claim. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant [*718] to Rule 34(j)(1), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).
Davis filed this complaint in forma pauperis, naming a number of employees of the Michigan Department of Corrections as defendants, and alleging that they had placed him on modified grievance access in violation of his First Amendment rights, and in retaliation for his filing of grievances. The district court screened the complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a claim. Davis has reasserted his claims on appeal. Counsel for defendants has informed the court that he will not be filing a brief.
Upon review, we conclude that this complaint was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim, as Davis could prove no facts which would entitle him to relief. Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863, 867 (6th Cir. 2000).
Davis failed to state a claim of a denial of access to the courts in violation of his First Amendment rights, because he did not show prejudice to [**3] any nonfrivolous court proceeding. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349, 135 L. Ed. 2d 606, 116 S. Ct. 2174 (1996). Davis argued that he was unable to exhaust his administrative remedies, and therefore would not be able to file a civil rights action. The district court properly pointed out that, if Davis were wrongfully denied access to the grievance procedure, he would be able to show that the procedure was unavailable and therefore would not be prohibited from filing a civil rights action on that basis.
Davis also failed to state a claim of retaliation in violation of his First Amendment rights. In order to state a claim under this theory, Davis was required to show that he engaged in protected conduct, that he was subject to an adverse action designed to deter him from engaging in such conduct, and that there was a causal connection between the protected conduct and the adverse action. Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378, 394 (6th Cir. 1999). In this case, the record showed that Davis had filed a large number of grievances, many of which were rejected as raising non-grievable issues, raising multiple issues, or being duplicative, in addition to some [**4] which were denied on the merits. Because of his excessive and meritless grievances, he was placed on modified grievance access, which entails seeking approval before a grievance may be filed. In order for the filing of grievances to constitute protected conduct which may not be retaliated against, Davis must not have violated prison regulations with his grievances. Smith v. Campbell, 250 F.3d 1032, 1036-37 (6th Cir. 2001). In this case, Davis did violate prison regulations by his abuse of the grievance process. Moreover, he also failed to show that an adverse action was taken against him which would deter him from engaging in protected conduct. His placement on modified grievance access only ensured that he would file grievances that complied with prison regulations, thus allowing him to engage in the precise conduct which he alleged he wished to pursue.
For the above reasons, the dismissal of this complaint for failure to state a claim is affirmed. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
No. 02-1824
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
52 Fed. Appx. 717; 2002 U.S. App.
December 9, 2002, Filed
NOTICE: [**1] NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION. SIXTH CIRCUIT RULE 28(g) LIMITS CITATION TO SPECIFIC SITUATIONS. PLEASE SEE RULE 28(g) BEFORE CITING IN A PROCEEDING IN A COURT IN THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. IF CITED, A COPY MUST BE SERVED ON OTHER PARTIES AND THE COURT. THIS NOTICE IS TO BE PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED IF THIS DECISION IS REPRODUCED.
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: US Supreme Court certiorari denied by Davis v. Overton, 2003 U.S. (U.S., May 27, 2003)
PRIOR HISTORY: Western District of Michigan. 02-00287. McKeague. 06-07-02.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed.
COUNSEL: MINYARD CASS DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, Pro se, St. Louis, MI.
JUDGES: Before: COLE and CLAY, Circuit Judges; BERTELSMAN, District Judge. *
* The Honorable William O. Bertelsman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation.
OPINION:
[*717] ORDER
Before: COLE and CLAY, Circuit Judges; BERTELSMAN, District Judge. *
* The Honorable William O. Bertelsman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation.
Minyard Cass Davis, a Michigan state prisoner, appeals pro se a district court order dismissing his civil rights [**2] complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for failure to state a claim. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant [*718] to Rule 34(j)(1), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).
Davis filed this complaint in forma pauperis, naming a number of employees of the Michigan Department of Corrections as defendants, and alleging that they had placed him on modified grievance access in violation of his First Amendment rights, and in retaliation for his filing of grievances. The district court screened the complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a claim. Davis has reasserted his claims on appeal. Counsel for defendants has informed the court that he will not be filing a brief.
Upon review, we conclude that this complaint was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim, as Davis could prove no facts which would entitle him to relief. Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863, 867 (6th Cir. 2000).
Davis failed to state a claim of a denial of access to the courts in violation of his First Amendment rights, because he did not show prejudice to [**3] any nonfrivolous court proceeding. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349, 135 L. Ed. 2d 606, 116 S. Ct. 2174 (1996). Davis argued that he was unable to exhaust his administrative remedies, and therefore would not be able to file a civil rights action. The district court properly pointed out that, if Davis were wrongfully denied access to the grievance procedure, he would be able to show that the procedure was unavailable and therefore would not be prohibited from filing a civil rights action on that basis.
Davis also failed to state a claim of retaliation in violation of his First Amendment rights. In order to state a claim under this theory, Davis was required to show that he engaged in protected conduct, that he was subject to an adverse action designed to deter him from engaging in such conduct, and that there was a causal connection between the protected conduct and the adverse action. Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378, 394 (6th Cir. 1999). In this case, the record showed that Davis had filed a large number of grievances, many of which were rejected as raising non-grievable issues, raising multiple issues, or being duplicative, in addition to some [**4] which were denied on the merits. Because of his excessive and meritless grievances, he was placed on modified grievance access, which entails seeking approval before a grievance may be filed. In order for the filing of grievances to constitute protected conduct which may not be retaliated against, Davis must not have violated prison regulations with his grievances. Smith v. Campbell, 250 F.3d 1032, 1036-37 (6th Cir. 2001). In this case, Davis did violate prison regulations by his abuse of the grievance process. Moreover, he also failed to show that an adverse action was taken against him which would deter him from engaging in protected conduct. His placement on modified grievance access only ensured that he would file grievances that complied with prison regulations, thus allowing him to engage in the precise conduct which he alleged he wished to pursue.
For the above reasons, the dismissal of this complaint for failure to state a claim is affirmed. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.