UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT EVANS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case Number: 09-CV-11856

Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds

MR. EATON and MS. HENRY,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING 42 U.S.C. §1983 CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT

AND CONCLUDING THAT AN APPEAL CANNOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH

I.

This is a prisoner civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff Robert Evans is a

state inmate currently incarcerated at the Gus Harrison Correctional Facility in Adrian,

Michigan. The Court has granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court must

read Plaintiff’s pro se pleadings under “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by

lawyers,” see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and accept Plaintiff’s allegations as

true, unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25,

33 (1992). Applying those standards, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to

state a claim.

II.

In his pro se pleadings, Plaintiff alleges that Grievance Coordinator Mr. Eaton (first

name unknown), a named Defendant in the case, deliberately refused to process his grievances,

“giving erroneous, frivolous, and false reasons for his justification of such.” (Plaintiff’s

Statement of Facts, II.) Plaintiff also alleges that Mr. Eaton changed the code numbers on his

2:09-cv-11856-NGE-MJH Doc # 4 Filed 06/04/09 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 25
2

grievances in an attempt to keep him from filing his complaints, and that he (Mr. Eaton) has

processed his grievances past the deadline and refused to give him the necessary forms in order

to exhaust his administrative remedies. Id. As a result of Mr. Eaton’s conduct, Plaintiff filed a

grievance against him. Plaintiff also alleges that Hearing Investigator Ms. Henry (first name

unknown), also a named Defendant in this case, denied the grievance filed against Mr. Eaton,

without articulating reasons for the denial.

A.

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, PUB. L. NO. 104-134, 110 STAT. 1321 (1996) 

(“PLRA”), a court is required to sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint before

service on a defendant if it determines that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a

claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is

immune from such relief. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(c); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A complaint

fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted when it is clear that no relief could be

granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations of the

complaint. Jones v. City of Carlisle, 3 F.3d 945, 947 (6th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1177

(1994). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right

secured by the federal Constitution or laws and must show that the deprivation was committed

by a person acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Street v.

Corr. Corp. of Am., 102 F.3d 810, 814 (6th Cir. 1996). Because § 1983 is a method for

vindicating federal rights, not a source of substantive rights itself, the first step in an action under

§ 1983 is to identify the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed. Albright v. Oliver, 510

U.S. 266, 271 (1994).

2:09-cv-11856-NGE-MJH Doc # 4 Filed 06/04/09 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 26
3

B.

Plaintiff’s alleges that Defendant Eaton refused to process his grievance. The Sixth

Circuit held that where the defendant’s only involvement in the allegedly unconstitutional

conduct is the denial of administrative grievances or the failure to act, the defendant cannot be

liable under § 1983. Shehee v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295, 300 (6th Cir. 1999). The reason is that

there must be active unconstitutional behavior. Failing to intervene on a prisoner’s behalf to

remedy alleged unconstitutional behavior does not amount to active unconstitutional behavior by

a person who merely [refuses to process] an administrative grievance. Id. Also, in unpublished

decisions, the Sixth Circuit has held that a prisoner’s allegation that a defendant improperly

denied a grievance is not a claim of constitutional dimension because there is “no inherent

constitutional right to an effective prison grievance procedure.” See Overholt v. Unibase Data

Entry, Inc., No. 98-3302, 2000 WL 799760, at *3 (6th Cir. June 14, 2000) (citing Flick v. Alba,

932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991)); Lyle v. Stahl, No. 97-2007, 1998 WL 476189, at *1 (6th Cir.

Aug. 3, 1998) (same) (citations omitted); see also Wynn v. Wolf, No. 93-2411, 1994 WL 105907,

at *1 (6th Cir. Mar.28, 1994) (same) (citations omitted). In light of the foregoing authority,

Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant Eaton improperly failed to process his grievance fails to

state a claim of constitutional dimension.

C.

Plaintiff next alleges that Defendant Henry denied his grievance, without articulating

reasons for doing so. For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Henry likewise

must be dismissed; the wrongful denial of a prison grievance does not violate any federal right,

“as there is no inherent constitutional right to an effective prison grievance procedure.” See

2:09-cv-11856-NGE-MJH Doc # 4 Filed 06/04/09 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 27
4

Overholt, No. 98-3302, 2000 WL 799760, at *3; Lyle, No. 97-2007, 1998 WL 476189, at *1; see

also Wynn, No. 93-2411, 1994 WL 105907, at *1. Furthermore, state law does not create any

liberty interest in a grievance procedure. Keenan v. Marker, 23 Fed.App’x 405, 407 (6th Cir.

2001) (citing Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 467 (1983)). Additionally, prison hearings

investigators or officers in Michigan are entitled to absolute judicial immunity from liability in a

42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit challenging their actions in conducting an administrative hearing. Banks

v. Klapish, 717 F.Supp. 520, 521 (W.D. Mich. 1989) (citing Shelly v. Johnson, 849 F.2d 228,

230 (6th Cir. 1988)). Therefore, Plaintiff’s suit against Defendant Henry must be dismissed.

III.

Having conducted the review required by the PLRA, the Court determines that Plaintiff’s

action fails to state a claim and will therefore be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2),

1915A(b), and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c).

The Court must next decide whether an appeal of this action would be in good faith

within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 611

(6th Cir.1997). For the same reasons that the Court dismisses the action, the Court discerns no

good-faith basis for an appeal. Should Plaintiff appeal this decision, the Court will assess the

appellate filing fee pursuant to § 1915(b)(1), see McGore, 114 F.3d at 610-11, unless Plaintiff is

barred from proceeding in forma pauperis, e.g., by the “three-strikes” rule of § 1915(g). If he is

barred, he will be required to pay the appellate filing fee in one lump sum. 

2:09-cv-11856-NGE-MJH Doc # 4 Filed 06/04/09 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 28
5

This dismissal counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). A judgment

consistent with this opinion will be entered.

s/Nancy G. Edmunds 

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge

Dated: June 4, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or

counsel of record on June 4, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol A. Hemeyer 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-11856-NGE-MJH Doc # 4 Filed 06/04/09 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 29