Johnson v. Poulin et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DEONDRE KINTE JOHNSON,
Case No. 1:24-cv-898
Plaintiff,
Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou
v.
MICHAEL J. POULIN and
UNKNOWN WALL,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a pro se civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Deondre
Kinte Johnson, a prisoner in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC). In
this lawsuit, plaintiff sued Muskegon County Sheriff Michael Poulin and Sgt. Wall in their official
capacities. See Compl. (ECF No. 1, PageID.2). This matter is now before the Court on defendants’
motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 16). Plaintiff did not file a timely response.1
I. 	Plaintiff’s complaint
Plaintiff filed a one-paragraph complaint (in his words):
On Aug. 23, 2024 @ or around 12:00 PM @ 2:00 PM Deputy Griswald of the
Muskegon County Jail passed me my legal mail that had already been opened
without me being present. 	Deputy Griswald inform me that Sgt. Wall was the
person who handle the legal mail. I kited Sgt Wall and was told per Policy my legal
mail was open, copied, and the orginal was destored without me being present.
Then on Sat Aug 24, 2024 I recieved legal mail again that was photo-copied and
the orginal copy’s was destored.
1 The Court notes that shortly before it intended to e-file this report and recommendation, the Clerk’s Office docketed
an untimely “response” from plaintiff (ECF No. 31). For reasons set forth in previously filed orders (ECF Nos. 32
and 33), the Court has not considered this untimely response.
Case 1:24-cv-00898-HYJ-RSK ECF No. 33, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/22/26 Page 1
of 8

2
Compl. at PageID.3.
Plaintiff appears to be claiming a violation of the First Amendment. “A prisoner’s
right to receive mail is undoubtedly protected by the First Amendment, but prison officials may
impose restrictions that are reasonably related to security or other penological objectives.” Sallier
v. Brooks, 343 F.3d 868, 873 (6th Cir. 2003).
[W]hen the incoming mail is “legal mail,” we have heightened concern with
allowing prison officials unfettered discretion to open and read an inmate’s mail
because a prison’s security needs do not automatically trump a prisoner’s First
Amendment right to receive mail, especially correspondence that impacts upon or
has import for the prisoner’s legal rights, the attorney-client privilege, or the right
of access to the courts.
Id. at 874. For his relief plaintiff “would like the Court to change the Policy and Pay me $150,000.”
Compl. at PageID.4.
II. 	Motion for summary judgment
A. 	Legal standard
Defendant 	has 	moved 	for 	summary 	judgment 	for 	lack 	of 	exhaustion 	of
administrative remedies and on the merits. “The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant
shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Rule 56 further provides that a party asserting that a
fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by:
(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions,
documents, 	electronically 	stored 	information, 	affidavits 	or 	declarations,
stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions,
interrogatory answers, or other materials; or
(B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a
genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to
support the fact.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1).
Case 1:24-cv-00898-HYJ-RSK ECF No. 33, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/22/26 Page 2
of 8

3
In Copeland v. Machulis, 57 F.3d 476 (6th Cir. 1995), the court set forth the parties’
burden of proof in a motion for summary judgment:
The moving party bears the initial burden of establishing an absence of evidence to
support the nonmoving party’s case. Once the moving party has met its burden of
production, the nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings, but must present
significant probative evidence in support of the complaint to defeat the motion for
summary judgment. The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence to support
plaintiff’s position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury
could reasonably find for the plaintiff.
Copeland, 57 F.3d at 478-79 (citations omitted). “In deciding a motion for summary judgment,
the court views the factual evidence and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving
party.” McLean v. 988011 Ontario Ltd., 224 F.3d 797, 800 (6th Cir. 2000).
Plaintiff did not a responsive brief as required by W.D. Mich. LCivR 7.2(c) which
states that “any party opposing a dispositive motion shall, within twenty-eight (28) days after
service of the motion, file a responsive brief and any supporting materials.” “The fact that there
has been no response to a summary judgment motion does not, of course, mean that the motion is
to be granted automatically.” Champion v. Artuz, 76 F.3d 483, 486 (2d Cir. 1996). The trial court
is required to “intelligently and carefully review the legitimacy of such unresponded-to motion”
and cannot “blithely accept the conclusions argued in the motion.” 	Guarino v. Brookfield
Township Trustees, 980 F.2d 399, 407 (6th Cir. 1992). 	However, when a motion for summary
judgment is unopposed, “[n]othing in either the Rules or case law supports an argument that the
trial court must conduct its own probing investigation of the record” to demonstrate the existence
of genuine issues of material fact. Id. at 405.
B. 	Exhaustion
Defendants contend that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) provides that a prisoner bringing an action with respect to
Case 1:24-cv-00898-HYJ-RSK ECF No. 33, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/22/26 Page 3
of 8

4
prison conditions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must first exhaust available administrative remedies.
See Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002); Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001). See 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e(a) (“No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of
this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional
facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.”). 	A prisoner must
exhaust available administrative remedies, even if the prisoner may not be able to obtain the
specific type of relief he seeks in the state administrative process. See Porter, 534 U.S. at 520;
Booth, 532 U.S. at 741.
One reason for creating prisoner grievance procedures under the PLRA was to
create an administrative record for the court.
Requiring exhaustion allows prison officials an opportunity to resolve disputes
concerning the exercise of their responsibilities before being haled into court. This
has the potential to reduce the number of inmate suits, and also to improve the
quality of suits that are filed by producing a useful administrative record.
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 204 (2007).
In order to properly exhaust administrative remedies, prisoners must complete the
administrative review process in accordance with the deadlines and other applicable procedural
rules. Id. at 218; Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-91 (2006). “Compliance with prison grievance
procedures, therefore, is all that is required by the PLRA to ‘properly exhaust.’” Jones, 549 U.S.
at 218.
Here, the Muskegon County Jail has a grievance procedure for inmates such as
plaintiff. 	See Order of the Muskegon County Sheriff for Inmate Grievances (ECF No. 16-11,
PageID.85-87). 	The grievance system is “used to allow prisoners to file a written complaint
regarding conditions of confinement and complaints against Sheriff’s Office employees.”
PageID.85. 	The policy is further limited “for situations that occur within the confines of the
Case 1:24-cv-00898-HYJ-RSK ECF No. 33, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/22/26 Page 4
of 8

5
Muskegon County Jail or that directly involve employees of the Muskegon County Sheriff’s
Office.” 	Id. Under the policy, “[p]risoners must file a grievance within 7 days precipitating an
event.” Id. at PageID.86. Upon a prisoner requesting a grievance, “Corrections staff shall provide
the inmate with a grievance form.” Id. Paragraph 4 of the “GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE” sets
out the following “Prisoner requirements”:
a. All grievances must be filed on an individual basis for issues seeking redress[.]
b. The grievance must be in writing and shall explain reasons for and nature of the
grievance.
c. Prisoners must make and document reasonable attempts to resolve the complaint
informally prior to filing a grievance.
Id. Upon receiving a completed grievance form from an inmate, the member of corrections staff
taking the grievance “shall sign the line indicating receipt of the grievance” and turn the grievance
into their shift command. Id. The sheriff’s office has “7 days to investigate and respond to the
grievance.” Id. 	“After receiving a level 1 response the prisoner has 3 days to request a level 2
review by the administrative sergeant or jail administrator.” Id.
Defendants point out that “no records indicate Plaintiff filed a grievance—much
less filed one within 7 days of his mail being opened.” 	Defendants’ Brief (ECF No. 16-1,
PageID.49). In his declaration, Jail Administrator Lt. Stephenson stated that, “The Muskegon
County Jail has not received any grievances for the issue stated in Plaintiff’s Complaint.”
Stephenson Decl. (ECF No. 16-4, PageID.65).2
2 By way of background, Lt. Stephenson stated that he was part of a 2024 investigation into the smuggling of cocaine
and methamphetamines into the Jail. Stephenson stated in part,
6. On August 8, 2024, Sgt. Bader discovered phone calls and texts messages between Plaintiff,
Deondre Johnson, and his girlfriend, which referenced using Mr. Johnson’s legal mail and/or a Jail
Nurse as a way to smuggle cocaine and methamphetamines into the Jail.
7. Thereafter, I directed Jail staff to forward all correspondence to or from Mr. Johnson to command
to be screened outside of his presence.
Case 1:24-cv-00898-HYJ-RSK ECF No. 33, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/22/26 Page 5
of 8

6
At his deposition, plaintiff testified that he could file a grievance on a paper form
or on his tablet. Johnson Dep. (ECF No. 16-12, PageID.105). Then, plaintiff stated his “belief”
that he filed the grievance on his tablet:
Q. And did you file a grievance on your tablet for this incident?
A. I believe I did.
Q. And what was the result of that grievance?
A. Never heard nothing about it. Never got a response.
Q. Did you follow up with jail staff regarding the lack of response?
A. Yes. But I -- yeah, I’ve never heard nothing. Nobody never did anything for me.
Id. at PageID.106.
Plaintiff also testified that he filed a grievance for the incident via paper. 	Id. at
PageID.114, 127. 	Plaintiff did not provide a date for when he filed the paper grievance. 	Id. at
PageID.127. Plaintiff stated that, “since I didn’t hear nothing back from the paper, I put one on
my tablet.” Id. 	Then, plaintiff stated that he submitted the grievance on his tablet “a few weeks,
a couple of weeks” after he submitted the paper grievance. 	Id. 	While plaintiff testified that he
“heard nothing” about his grievance, he did not “file a grievance for not receiving a response” to
the grievance regarding the legal mail. Id. at PageID.106. Finally, plaintiff stated that the MDOC
lost all of the documentation to support the claims in his lawsuit. See id. at PageID.98-99, 108.
Based on this record, an issue of fact appears to exist as to whether plaintiff filed a
grievance. As discussed, plaintiff testified that he filed a paper grievance on an unspecified date
and that he filed a grievance on his tablet at an unspecified date a few weeks later. Contrary to
Stephenson Decl. at PageID.65-66.
Case 1:24-cv-00898-HYJ-RSK ECF No. 33, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/22/26 Page 6
of 8

7
plaintiff’s testimony, Lt. Stephenson stated that the Jail “has not received any grievances for the
issue stated in Plaintiff’s Complaint.”
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, his testimony
established that he filed a paper grievance at some point in time and that he filed a grievance on
his tablet a few weeks later. This evidence does not create a genuine issue of material fact on the
issue of exhaustion, i.e., whether plaintiff properly exhausted the First Amendment claim before
filing this lawsuit. 	“A genuine dispute of material fact exists ‘if the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Saunders v. Ford Motor Co., 879
F.3d 742, 748 (6th Cir. 2018) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)).
Here, there is no factual basis for a reasonable jury to find that plaintiff properly exhausted a
grievance related to the First Amendment claim at issue in this lawsuit. 	Plaintiff presented no
evidence that he filed a paper grievance within 7 days of the “precipitating event”, i.e., when he
discovered that someone at the Jail opened his legal mail on August 23 and/or August 24, 2024.
In addition, there is no evidence as to plaintiff’s attempts to resolve his complaint informally prior
to filing a grievance, when he wrote the grievance, what he wrote in the grievance, when he
delivered the grievance to a corrections officer, or which corrections officer took the grievance.
Based on plaintiff’s testimony, the grievance filed on his tablet was untimely, because it was filed
weeks after he allegedly filed the paper grievance.
In summary, there is no evidence that that plaintiff properly exhausted a grievance
related to the First Amendment claim at issue in this lawsuit. 	See Jones, 549 U.S. at 218-19;
Woodford, 548 U.S. at 90-93. Accordingly, defendants’ motion for summary judgment should be
granted on this basis.3
3 Because this case is resolved on the preliminary issue of exhaustion, it is unnecessary to address the merits of
plaintiff’s First Amendment claim.
Case 1:24-cv-00898-HYJ-RSK ECF No. 33, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/22/26 Page 7
of 8

8
III. 	Recommendation
For these reasons, I respectfully recommend that defendants’ motion for summary
judgment (ECF No. 16) be GRANTED and that this lawsuit be terminated.
Dated: January 22, 2026 	/s/ Ray Kent
RAY KENT
United States Magistrate Judge
ANY OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be served and filed with the Clerk
of the Court within fourteen (14) days after service of the report. All objections and responses to
objections are governed by W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b). Failure to serve and file written objections
within the specified time waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
Case 1:24-cv-00898-HYJ-RSK ECF No. 33, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/22/26 Page 8
of 8