UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JONATHAN JOSEPH GOOD

Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 15-12064

 Honorable Avern Cohn

v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

 

DENNIS HEYNS, et al.,

 

Defendants. 

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT IN PART AND

DENY IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SEVER AND DISMISS [R. 

40], AND SUA SPONTE DISMISS CLAIMS SIX THROUGH ELEVEN

I. INTRODUCTION

On June 5, 2015, Plaintiff Jonathan Joseph Good filed the instant 

complaint against the following twenty-one defendants: Former Michigan 

Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) Director Daniel Heyns, Grievance 

and Appeals Manager Richard Russell, St. Louis Correctional Facility 

(“SLF”) Warden Steve Rivard, SLF Deputy Wardens Kelly Barnett and 

Mark McCullick, SLF Grievance Coordinator Kathleen Parsons, SLF 

Classification Director Julius Mayfield, SLF Hearings Investigator Lori Scott; 

SLF Resident Unit Manager (“RUM”) Bradley Peet, SLF Assistant Resident 

Unit Supervisors (“ARUS”) Barbara Finch and Wendi Walworth, SLF 

Lieutenant (Lt.) Warren Rose, SLF Sergeant Jill Levy, SLF Corrections 

2:15-cv-12064-AC-EAS Doc # 46 Filed 03/22/16 Pg 1 of 9 Pg ID 373
2

Officers (“C/O”) Michael Cerny and Ray Sholtz, SLF Athletic Director Eric 

Smith, SLF Librarian Jeremy Bugbee, SLF Library Assistant Dujuna 

VanDeCasteele, Alger Correctional Facility (“LMF”) Warden Catherine 

Bauman, LMF Prison Counselor Jill Denman, and retired LMF RUM 

Tammy Lindemuth. [R. 1]. At all relevant times, Good was incarcerated at 

either the St. Louis Correctional Facility or the Alger Correctional Facility. 

[Id., PgID 2]. Defendants now move the Court to sever and dismiss without 

prejudice all claims and defendants other than the initial claim and the 

defendants therein, based on misjoinder of parties and claims. 

For the reasons set forth below, the Court RECOMMENDS1 that the 

defendants’ motion to sever [R. 40] be GRANTED in part and DENIED in 

part; that claims twelve through sixteen be dismissed without prejudice; and 

that claims six through eleven be dismissed sua sponte with prejudice.

II. ANALYSIS

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2), multiple defendants 

may be joined in a single action if they meet the following criteria:

(A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in 

the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same 

transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; 

and

(B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in 

 

1 The Honorable Avern Cohn referred all pretrial matters to the undersigned 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). [R. 6].

2:15-cv-12064-AC-EAS Doc # 46 Filed 03/22/16 Pg 2 of 9 Pg ID 374
3

the action.

The Court is mindful that “joinder of claims, parties and remedies is strongly 

encouraged.” United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 724 

(1966). At the same time, “unrelated claims by prisoners against different 

defendants belong in different lawsuits.” Townsend v. Rhodes, No. 4:14-

CV-10411, 2015 WL 5336630, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 14, 2015) (citing 

George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007)). “Thus multiple claims 

against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not 

be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.” George, 507 F.3d 

at 607. Although misjoinder does not warrant dismissal of an action, the 

Court may dismiss misjoined parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 21; Michaels Bldg. 

Co. v. Ameritrust Co., 848 F.2d 674, 682 (6th Cir. 1988).

Defendants argue that the instant complaint is akin to George v. 

Smith. [R. 40, PgID 300]. In doing so, they briefly summarize Good’s 

sprawling allegations, but make no effort to specifically analyze the relation, 

or lack thereof, between the defendants and claims to one another. As set 

forth below, the Court finds that some of Good’s claims are misjoined and 

should be dismissed. Other claims should be dismissed because they fail 

as a matter of law.

2:15-cv-12064-AC-EAS Doc # 46 Filed 03/22/16 Pg 3 of 9 Pg ID 375
4

a. Claims One through Five

Claims one, two, three, four, and five all clearly arise from the same 

occurrence: C/O Cerny’s allegedly false misconduct report against Good on 

June 27, 2013. [R. 1, PgID 7]. Claim one relates to a policy directive, PD 

03.03.105, as implemented by Director Heyns, that allegedly violated 

Good’s due process by facilitating false misconduct reports such as the one 

allegedly filed against him. [R. 1, PgID 6-7]. Claim two states that C/O 

Cerny authored the false misconduct report against Good in retaliation for 

Good’s exercise of his First Amendment right to file a grievance. [Id., PgID 

7-9]. Claim three is based on C/O Cerny’s and RUM Peet’s actions during 

the hearing concerning the alleged false misconduct report. [Id., PgID 9-

13]. It also contains allegations against Hearing Investigator Scott relating 

to the investigation of the misconduct report. [Id]. Claim four alleges that 

Grievance Coordinator Parsons and Hearings Investigator Scott “aided and 

abetted [C/O] Cerny’s initial retaliation” and “suppressed evidence” in the 

record of the hearing, and “sought to deter” Good’s redress against C/O 

Cerny and appeal from RUM Peet’s findings. [Id., PgID 13]. Claim five lays 

out allegations against Deputy Warden McCullick regarding his adjudication 

of the appeal of the hearing. [Id., PgID 15-16]. 

Thus, as it relates to Claims one to five, Defendants’ motion to sever 

2:15-cv-12064-AC-EAS Doc # 46 Filed 03/22/16 Pg 4 of 9 Pg ID 376
5

should be denied.

b. Claims Six through Eleven

The Court has an obligation under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 

1915A to dismiss complaints sua sponte when they fail to state a claim, are 

frivolous, or seek monetary relief from immune defendants. In re Prison 

Litig. Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131, 1134 (6th Cir. 1997). Claims six through 

eleven should be dismissed with prejudice, as they fail to state a claim 

against any defendant. Each of these claims relates to a different 

defendant’s role in the grievance procedure after Good filed a grievance 

against C/O Cerny for the false misconduct report. [Id., PgID 16-24]. 

“[T]here is no inherent constitutional right to an effective prison grievance 

procedure,” Keenan v. Marker, 23 F. App'x 405, 407 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing 

Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 467 (1983)). Because Claims six through 

eleven allege only violations of prison procedure regarding Good’s 

grievance, they fail to state a claim and should be dismissed sua sponte

with prejudice.

c. Claims Twelve through Sixteen

The remaining claims, twelve through sixteen, do not arise out of the 

same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as 

the prior claims. In claims twelve and fourteen, Good alleges various 

2:15-cv-12064-AC-EAS Doc # 46 Filed 03/22/16 Pg 5 of 9 Pg ID 377
6

defendants not cited in the previous claims committed acts of retaliation 

and covered them up because he filed seven grievances that were 

unrelated to the one at the center of claims one through five. [R. 1, PgID 

24-38, PgID 46-50; R. 1-1, PgID 51-52]. Claim thirteen alleges further 

retaliation, including a transfer from St. Louis Correctional Facility to Alger 

Correctional Facility, for the same acts as in claim twelve. [R. 1, PgID 38-

45]. In claim fifteen, Good contends that Alger Correctional Facility 

defendants attempted to deter Good from filing a grievance and then 

retaliated against him for doing so. [R. 1-1, PgID 52-57]. Finally, claim 

sixteen states that at all times, Good was prevented from purchasing, 

possessing, or using a personal computer, which infringed on his right of 

access to the courts. [Id., PgID 57-67].

Claims twelve through sixteen are misjoined because they are wholly 

unrelated to PD 03.03.105, at issue in claim one, or C/O Cerny’s 

misconduct report filed against Good, at issue in claims two through 

eleven. The claims against the misjoined parties should be dismissed, 

leaving as defendants Director Heyns, C/O Cerny, RUM Peet, Sergeant 

Levy, Hearing Investigator Scott, Grievance Coordinator Parsons and 

2:15-cv-12064-AC-EAS Doc # 46 Filed 03/22/16 Pg 6 of 9 Pg ID 378
7

Deputy Warden McCullick.2

III. CONCLUSION

For the preceding reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that the 

defendants’ motion to sever [R. 40] be GRANTED as to claims twelve 

through sixteen, and DENIED as to claims one through five. Furthermore, 

the Court RECOMMENDS that claims six through eleven be dismissed sua 

sponte with prejudice for failure to state a claim, leaving the defendants 

remaining as Director Heyns, C/O Cerny, RUM Peet, Sergeant Levy

Hearing Investigator Scott, Grievance Coordinator Parsons, and Deputy 

Warden McCullick.

s/Elizabeth A. Stafford

ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD

United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: March 22, 2016

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS

Either party to this action may object to and seek review of this 

Report and Recommendation, but must act within fourteen days of service 

of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any 

 

2 The Court notes that there may be other grounds for dismissal of these 

claims or against these defendants that are not addressed by the current 

motion. 

2:15-cv-12064-AC-EAS Doc # 46 Filed 03/22/16 Pg 7 of 9 Pg ID 379
8

further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. 

Secretary of HHS, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 

638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). Filing objections which raise some issues but 

fail to raise others with specificity will not preserve all objections that party 

might have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Secretary of 

HHS, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers 

Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). A copy of any objection 

must be served upon this Magistrate Judge. E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2).

Each objection must be labeled as “Objection #1,” “Objection #2,” 

etc., and must specify precisely the provision of this Report and 

Recommendation to which it pertains. Not later than fourteen days after 

service of objections, the non-objecting party must file a response to 

the objections, specifically addressing each issue raised in the objections in 

the same order and labeled as “Response to Objection #1,” “Response to 

Objection #2,” etc. The response must be concise and proportionate in 

length and complexity to the objections, but there is otherwise no page 

limitation. If the Court determines that any objections are without merit, it 

may rule without awaiting the response.

2:15-cv-12064-AC-EAS Doc # 46 Filed 03/22/16 Pg 8 of 9 Pg ID 380
9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served 

upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF 

System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses 

disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on March 22, 2016.

s/Marlena Williams

MARLENA WILLIAMS

Case Manager

2:15-cv-12064-AC-EAS Doc # 46 Filed 03/22/16 Pg 9 of 9 Pg ID 381