Click Back Button to Return to Publication
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
JOSEPH RAYMOND ZIEGLER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BOB MARTIN,et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-2677
47 Fed. Appx. 336
September 23, 2002, Filed
NOTICE: NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION.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.
ORDER
Before: KRUPANSKY and CLAY, Circuit Judges; GWIN, District
Judge. *
* The
Honorable James S. Gwin, United States District Judge for the Northern District
of Ohio, sitting by designation.
Joseph
Raymond Ziegler, a Michigan state prisoner, moves for injunctive relief and
appeals pro se the district court judgment in favor of defendants in this civil
rights action. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant 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).
Seeking monetary and
injunctive relief, Ziegler filed a complaint naming nine employees of the
Michigan Department of Corrections as defendants, and asserting a number of
claims. Both parties moved for summary judgment, and the matter was referred to
a magistrate judge, who recommended that defendants' motion be granted. The
magistrate judge found that some of the claims had not been exhausted pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), and that defendants were entitled to summary judgment
on the remainder of the claims. Ziegler filed objections to the magistrate
judge's report, as well as a motion to amend his complaint to add claims
arising subsequent to its filing, and a motion for injunctive relief. The
district court denied Ziegler's motions and adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to grant judgment to defendants.
On appeal,
Ziegler reasserts the merits of each of the claims raised below. He also argues
that the finding of failure to exhaust administrative remedies as to some of
the claims was erroneous, that 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) is unconstitutional, and
that the district court erred in denying his motions to amend and for
injunctive relief.
Upon review, we conclude that
the district court's judgment must be affirmed for the reasons stated in the
magistrate judge's report and the district court's opinion.
Two of the claims raised below were properly dismissed without
prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e(a). Ziegler failed to show that he filed a grievance concerning his
allegation that a prison guard solicited another prisoner to assault him. On
appeal, Ziegler argues that he exhausted remedies regarding this claim by
filing a "Request for Declaratory Ruling" under state law. However,
this court has held that prisoners must exhaust the institutional grievance
procedure, not some alternative remedy that is not designed to address prison
conditions. Freeman v. Francis, 196
F.3d 641, 644 (6th Cir. 1999). Ziegler
also failed to exhaust administrative remedies regarding his claim that his
radio was confiscated without due process until after this complaint had been
filed. The prison grievance process must be completed before the filing of the
complaint in order to satisfy § 1997e(a).
Id. at 643. We need not address Ziegler's argument that § 1997e(a) is
unconstitutional, as it was not raised below.
Foster v. Barilow, 6 F.3d 405, 407 (6th Cir. 1993). Therefore, the
dismissal of these two claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is
affirmed.
Defendants were properly granted summary judgment on the
remaining claims, as there is no genuine issue of material fact, and they are
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265, 106 S.
Ct. 2548 (1986).
[*338] Ziegler claimed that a prison guard
retaliated against him for writing letters "celebrating" the death of
another guard, by filing a false misconduct charge against him. In order to
state a claim of retaliation, Ziegler
was required to show that he engaged in protected conduct, that he was
subjected to an adverse action, and
that there was a causal connection between the protected conduct and the
adverse action. Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378, 386 (6th Cir. 1999) (en
banc). In this case, even assuming that writing letters celebrating the death
of a prison guard is protected conduct, Ziegler failed to demonstrate the
existence of the remaining elements of his claim. Although he alleges that a
"false" misconduct report was filed, nothing in the record supports
this conclusion. The charge was ultimately dismissed only because evidence
which Ziegler had requested was not made available to him at the disciplinary
hearing, not because there was any indication that he was not guilty of the
charged offense. Filing a misconduct charge that is based on a prisoner's
misconduct is not an adverse action. Nor did Ziegler show any causal connection
between the two events, relying solely on his own conclusion. Therefore,
defendants were entitled to summary judgment on this claim.
Ziegler
also claimed that a supervisory defendant failed to investigate his claim that
the prison guard solicited another prisoner to assault him. Defendants
supported their motion for summary judgment with documentation establishing a
thorough investigation of this allegation, which Ziegler failed to refute.
Therefore, summary judgment was also proper on this claim.
Ziegler's
next claim was that defendants violated the Eighth Amendment when, in response
to his threats to commit suicide, accompanied by barricading himself in his
cell and telling a guard that he had swallowed a razor blade, he was placed in
soft restraints on his bed. In support of their summary judgment motion,
defendants submitted a video tape of this entire episode, which the magistrate
judge viewed. He concluded that no evidence supported Ziegler's claim. Ziegler
did not meet his burden of showing an unnecessary and wanton infliction of
pain, see Brooks v. Celeste, 39 F.3d
125, 127-28 (6th Cir. 1994), or that force was applied maliciously and
sadistically rather than in good faith. See
Caldwell v. Moore, 968 F.2d 595, 599-601 (6th Cir. 1992). Ziegler
pointed to no evidence which would demonstrate error in the magistrate judge's
findings, and summary judgment was therefore proper.
Ziegler
also claimed that he was not permitted yard exercise time or telephone access
during working hours for slightly over one month, because he was classified as
having refused a job assignment. He was permitted out of his cell during
working hours for meals, showers, medical appointments, visits, and, after two
weeks, for religious programming. He pursued the proper remedy for having
himself classified as medically unable to work, and was then permitted yard
exercise and telephone access during working hours again. Defendants were
entitled to judgment on Ziegler's challenge to this prison rule, as it was
reasonably related to the legitimate penological objective of not rewarding
prisoners who refuse work assignments with more privileges than those who
accept prison employment. See Turner
v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89, 96 L. Ed. 2d 64, 107 S. Ct. 2254 (1987). Ziegler
also argues that he was discriminated against on the basis of a disability in
violation of federal and state disability discrimination laws. However, he
failed to state a claim under either federal or state law, as he was not
arguing that he was qualified for a [*339]
job assignment and was refused employment on the basis of a disability. Monette
v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 90 F.3d 1173, 1178 & n.3 (6th Cir. 1996).
Finally, defendants were properly granted summary judgment on
Ziegler's claim that they were involved in a conspiracy to violate his rights
in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985. In order to state a claim under this
provision, Ziegler had to establish a conspiracy by defendants to deny him
equal protection of the laws, motivated by racial or class animus, which caused
him injury. Bass v. Robinson, 167 F.3d
1041, 1050 (6th Cir. 1999). Ziegler established the existence of no facts in
support of his conclusory allegation of this claim.
We need not address the issue disputed by the parties as to whether some of the supervisory defendants were liable for any injury on the basis of respondeat superior, as Ziegler failed to establish any constitutional violations. The remaining arguments raised on appeal are also without merit. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ziegler's motion for injunctive relief, as he had no likelihood of success on the merits of his claims. Gonzales v. Nat'l Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 225 F.3d 620, 625 (6th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1038 (2001). There was also no abuse of discretion by the district court in denying Ziegler's motion to amend his complaint to raise additional claims which allegedly accrued during the pendency of this action.
Accordingly, all pending motions are denied, and the district court's
judgment is affirmed. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
Click Back Button to Return
to Publication