Gibson #873946 v. Haggagi et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
HAMEED R. GIBSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
ZAKRIA HAGGAGI, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:24-cv-891
HON. JANE M. BECKERING
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This is a prisoner civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	Following
screening, remaining in the case are the following claims against Defendant Haggagi: two
retaliation claims, an inappropriate sexual touching claim, and state-law claims. 	Defendant
Haggagi moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff failed to properly exhaust his
administrative remedies regarding the two retaliation claims. 	The matter was referred to the
Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R), recommending that this
Court grant Defendant’s motion. The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections
to the Report and Recommendation. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), the Court has performed de novo consideration of those portions of
the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. 	The Court denies the
objections and issues this Opinion and Order.
The Magistrate Judge considered two grievances, determining that neither “serves to
exhaust any of Plaintiff’s remaining claims of retaliation” (R&R, ECF No. 21 at PageID.159–161).
Case 1:24-cv-00891-JMB-PJG ECF No. 24, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/22/26 Page 1
of 3

2
Regarding the first grievance, LCF-23-07-0571-27a (“LCF-571”), which is the only grievance that
Plaintiff discusses in his objections, the Magistrate Judge determined that this grievance could not
serve to properly exhaust any of Plaintiff’s remaining claims of retaliation because the grievance
was rejected at Step I on the ground that Plaintiff was asserting “a non-grieveable issue,” to wit: a
claim “directly related to the misconduct hearing process,” including a claim that a misconduct
charge was motivated by retaliatory animus (id. at PageID.160, citing Hill v. Grover, 2024 WL
2863432 at *6 (W.D. Mich., Jan. 24, 2024) (citing MDOC Policy Directive 03.02.130 ¶ J (9), (11),
and Siggers v. Campbell, 652 F.3d 681, 693–94 (6th Cir. 2011)).
Plaintiff disagrees, arguing that the grievance was “not about a misconduct” but “was about
the ongoing harassment and retaliation suffered by C/O Defendant Hagaggi [sic]” (Pl. Obj., ECF
No. 22 at PageID.163). According to Plaintiff, he only “briefly mentioned a retaliatory misconduct
to explain in what ways the Defendant was retaliating against the Plaintiff” (id. at PageID.164).
Plaintiff’s mere disagreement fails to demonstrate any factual or legal error in the Magistrate
Judge’s analysis or ultimate conclusion. Under the relevant Policy Directive, a grievance “shall
be rejected” if it is related to the decision made during the misconduct ticket hearing process (ECF
No. 22-1 at PageID.168–169). In Siggers, 652 F.3d at 693–94, the Sixth Circuit determined that
this provision is not restricted to the hearing officer’s administrative decision but extends to
challenges to the underlying misconduct charge. And where a grievance “relates to the issuance
of major misconduct reports, [ ] Michigan’s rules provide that the only avenue for challenging
such reports is a hearing.” 	Id. at 694. 	The Magistrate Judge properly concluded that Plaintiff
cannot rely on LCF-571 to exhaust any of his remaining retaliation claims.
Therefore:
Case 1:24-cv-00891-JMB-PJG ECF No. 24, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/22/26 Page 2
of 3

3
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (ECF No. 22) are DENIED and the
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 21) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Haggai’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s two remaining retaliation claims 1 are
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Dated: January 22, 2026
JANE M. BECKERING
United States District Judge
1 The Magistrate Judge describes these retaliation claims in the Report and Recommendation as
Plaintiff’s claims that “(1) on December 1, 2022, Defendant Haggagi retaliated against Plaintiff
by falsely charging him with a misconduct violation; [and] (2) on January 13, 2023, July 4, 2023,
and August 8, 2023, Defendant Haggagi retaliated against Plaintiff by conducting shakedowns of
Plaintiff’s living area” (R&R, ECF No. 21 at PageID.154–155).
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:24-cv-00891-JMB-PJG ECF No. 24, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/22/26 Page 3
of 3