Marshall #732012 v. Wonnacott et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
CALVIN EUNICE MARSHALL #732012,
Plaintiff, 	Hon. Paul L. Maloney
v. 	Case No. 2:25-cv-00102
UNKNOWN WONNACOTT, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
(ECF No. 20). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the undersigned recommends that
Defendants’ motion be granted and this action terminated.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is presently incarcerated with the MDOC at the Saginaw Correctional
Facility (SRF) in Freeland, Saginaw County, Michigan, but the events about which he
complains occurred at the Chippewa Correctional Facility (URF) in Kincheloe, Chippewa
County, Michigan. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff sues the following URF personnel in their
personal capacities: Warden James Corrigan, Unknown Deputy Warden, Unit Counselor
Unknown Wonnacott, and Resident Unit Manager Unknown Spiker. (ECF No. 1).
The Court screened out all claims except for Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims for
damages. (ECF Nos. 7, 8).
Case 2:25-cv-00102-PLM-PJG ECF No. 26, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/27/26 Page 1
of 6

-2-
In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following regarding his Eighth Amendment
claims. (ECF No. 1). After Plaintiff’s cellmate read Plaintiff’s notice of parole action,
which indicated that Plaintiff’s “outdate” was March 25, 2025, inmates in Plaintiff’s
housing unit began threatening him after he refused to sell his property. (ECF No. 1,
PageID.4-5). Plaintiff told all named Defendants about the situation and asked to be
moved to a different housing unit, but they all denied his request. (ECF No. 1,
PageID.5-6). Ultimately, Plaintiff was assaulted by his cellmate and ended up receiving
a misconduct ticket for fighting. (Id.).
Defendants now move for summary judgment on exhaustion grounds. (ECF
No. 20). Plaintiff responded to Defendants’ motion. (ECF No. 24). Defendants
replied. (ECF No. 25). The Court finds that oral argument is unnecessary. See
W.D. MICH. LCIVR 7.2(d).
ANALYSIS
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), a prisoner asserting an action regarding prison
conditions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must first exhaust his administrative remedies. See
Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002). This obligation only extends, however, to
such administrative remedies as are available. Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 642 (2016)
(a prisoner “must exhaust available remedies but need not exhaust unavailable ones”).
Prisoners are no longer required to demonstrate exhaustion in their complaints.
See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007). Instead, failure to exhaust administrative
Case 2:25-cv-00102-PLM-PJG ECF No. 26, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/27/26 Page 2
of 6

-3-
remedies is “an affirmative defense under the PLRA,” which the defendant bears the
burden of establishing. Ibid.
With respect to what constitutes proper exhaustion, the Supreme Court has stated
that the PLRA exhaustion requirement requires “proper exhaustion” defined as
“compliance with an agency’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules.” Woodford
v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-93 (2006). In Bock, the Court reiterated that
Compliance with prison grievance procedures, therefore, is all
that is required by the PLRA to ‘properly exhaust.’ The level
of detail necessary in a grievance to comply with the grievance
procedures will vary from system to system and claim to claim,
but it is the prison’s requirements, and not the PLRA, that
define the boundaries of proper exhaustion.
Bock, 549 U.S. at 218.
MDOC Policy Directive 03.02.130 articulates the applicable grievance procedures
for prisoners in MDOC custody. Prior to submitting a grievance, a prisoner must attempt
to resolve the issue with staff, unless prevented by circumstances beyond his control, or
the issue falls within the jurisdiction of Internal Affairs. MDOC Policy Directive
03.02.130 ¶ W (Oct. 21, 2024). The prisoner must attempt to resolve the matter within
two days of becoming aware that there exists a grievable issue. (Id.).
If this attempt is unsuccessful (or such is inapplicable), the prisoner may submit
a Step I grievance, but such must be submitted within five business days after
attempting to resolve the matter with staff. MDOC Policy Directive 03.02.130 ¶ CC
(Oct. 21, 2024). The issues asserted in a grievance “should be stated briefly but
Case 2:25-cv-00102-PLM-PJG ECF No. 26, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/27/26 Page 3
of 6

-4-
concisely” and the “[d]ates, times, places, and names of all those involved in the issue
being grieved are to be included.” MDOC Policy Directive 03.02.130 ¶ Y (Oct. 21, 2024).
If the prisoner is dissatisfied with the Step I response, or does not receive a timely
response, he may appeal to Step II within ten business days of the response, or if no
response was received, within ten business days after the response was due. MDOC
Policy Directive 03.02.130 ¶ JJ (Oct. 21, 2024). If the prisoner is dissatisfied with the
Step II response, or does not receive a timely Step II response, he may appeal the matter
to Step III. MDOC Policy Directive 03.02.130 ¶ NN (Oct. 21, 2024).
In their motion for summary judgment, Defendants point out that Plaintiff did not
exhaust any grievances through Step III at URF before filing this lawsuit. See MDOC
Prisoner Step III Grievance Report (ECF No. 21-3, PageID.127) (showing that plaintiff
did not file any Step III grievances at URF from January 1, 2019 through June 30, 2025).
In response, Plaintiff does not argue that he pursued any grievances through
Step III at URF but instead argues that prison officials prevented him from completing
the grievance process. (ECF No. 24, PageID.137). Plaintiff asserts that he submitted
a Step I grievance but did not receive a response for more than 24 days and could not
request an appeal form from the grievance coordinator while in segregation. (ECF No.
24, PageID.133, 136-37). But, “[i]f Plaintiff did not get a timely response to a Step I or
Step II grievance, he was still obligated to appeal to the next step to preserve his claim.”
Harvey v. Jamsen, No. 23-10049, 2023 WL 9284860, at *6 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 19, 2023).
Here, Plaintiff does not argue that he attempted to contact the grievance coordinator or
Case 2:25-cv-00102-PLM-PJG ECF No. 26, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/27/26 Page 4
of 6

-5-
that he requested a Step II appeal but merely states that “[t]here isn’t anyway [sic] to
properly exhaust any claims against MDOC staff” and that the grievance appeal process
is a “dead end.” (ECF No. 24, PageID.133). “The Sixth Circuit requires some
affirmative efforts to comply with the administrative procedures before analyzing
whether the facility rendered these remedies unavailable.” Napier v. Laurel Cnty., Ky.,
636 F.3d 218, 223 (6th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Byrd
v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 21-5911, 2022 WL 898772, at *2 (6th Cir. Feb. 28, 2022)
(“[Plaintiff]’s general, conclusory assertions . . . are not sufficient to establish that the
[prison facility] thwarted or made the grievance process unavailable to him in particular,
so as to excuse his exhaustion requirement.”). Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to create
a genuine issue of fact that the grievance process was unavailable to him.1
Based on the record, Plaintiff did not properly exhaust any grievance to support
his claims against any Defendant. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218-19 (2007); Woodford
v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-93 (2006). Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment should be granted.
1 To the extent that Plaintiff provided the “goldenrod” copy of the alleged Step I
grievance, which he attached as an exhibit to his complaint (ECF No. 1-1, PageID.17),
“this copy is proof that a grievance form was prepared, [but] it is not evidence that the
prisoner filed or attempted to file that grievance.” Harris v. Singerling, No. 1:24-CV-
626, 2025 WL 2404876, at *4 (W.D. Mich. July 21, 2025).
Case 2:25-cv-00102-PLM-PJG ECF No. 26, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/27/26 Page 5
of 6

-6-
CONCLUSION
For the reasons articulated herein, the Court recommends that Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 20) be granted and this action terminated.
For the same reasons the undersigned makes these recommendations, the undersigned
finds that an appeal of such would be frivolous and not in good faith. Coppedge v.
United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962).
OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk
of Court within fourteen days of the date of service of this notice. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to
appeal the District Court’s order. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United
States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir.1981).
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: March 27, 2026 	/s/ Phillip J. Green
PHILLIP J. GREEN
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:25-cv-00102-PLM-PJG ECF No. 26, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/27/26 Page 6
of 6