Opinion ID: 800677
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: Kevin King has been an inmate at the MDOC since he was incarcerated for first-degree murder in 1983. On September 17, 1999, the MDOC first transferred King to Brooks from Saginaw. His transfer order indicated that the transfer was requested on suspicion that King was a vocal participant in organizing a protest over personal property issues [1] and that the transfer was to separate suspected participants. King v. Zamiara, No. 4:02-CV-141, 2009 WL 3424221, at  (W.D.Mich. Oct. 20, 2009) ( King IV ) (quoting R. 130-4, Ex. 31 (Saginaw Transfer Order)). [2] Both the Brooks and Saginaw facilities were Level II facilities, which is the second lowest security level offered by the MDOC, and King does not challenge this transfer. Seven days after his arrival at Brooks, Sandra Naves (now Sandra Galiton, herein Naves) issued King a Notice of Intent (NOI) to classify him to segregation, which is an alternative to a misconduct ticket but similarly requires a hearing. The purported basis was that `it is believed that prisoner King is attempting to incite a demonstration amongst the prisoners.' King IV, 2009 WL 3424221, at  (quoting R.130-4, Ex. 27 (Naves NOI)). At trial, Naves testified that she was not responsible for supervising King's unit at the time of the alleged incident, she did not investigate the factual basis of the NOI, and she had no personal knowledge that King was attempting to incite a demonstration. R. 172 (Trial Tr. II at 197:8-198:20). She wrote the ticket because her supervisor, Sharon Wells, [3] asked her to and told her what to put in the NOI. Id. When Naves told Wells that she had a problem writing a ticket when she didn't have any personal knowledge about the underlying events, Naves testified that Wells told her to write it anyway. Id. at 198:21-199:5. [4] Naves's credibility was not challenged. King never had a hearing on the NOI because on September 27, 2009, he was transferred to another Level II facility for hernia surgery. King IV, 2009 WL 3424221, at . King's transfer order for surgery indicated that he had been transferred out of Saginaw due to his attempts to organize a demonstration there, and that [s]ince his arrival at [Brooks] he has attempted to do the same, R. 130-4, Ex. 32 (Surgery Transfer Order), but referenced only the recent NOI issued by Naves. King returned to Brooks on November 10, 1999. Two days later, he wrote a letter to Mary Berghuis, the Warden of Brooks at the time, complaining about his treatment and the monitoring of his phone calls in violation of Cain. King IV, 2009 WL 3424221, at . He added, Frankly, I don't like your facility at all. Your staff rival [sic] in abusing their authority and feel they don't have to answer to anyone. I've watched them provide [sic] situations and retaliate against those who remotely stand up for themselves. Id. (quoting R. 130-2, Ex. 3 (King/Berghuis Letter)). Sometime in early 2000, King became the Chairman of the Warden's Forum, a position elected by the other prisoners to serve as their representative in meetings with Warden Berghuis. R. 172 (Trial Tr. II at 224:25-225:25); see also R. 11-2, Ex. 8 (Prisoner Representative Policy). On February 19, 2000, King was issued a ticket [5] for being out of placea major misconduct violationin violation of a toplock order imposed by Wells a few days before. See King IV, 2009 WL 3424221, at  (citing R. 1-5, Ex. D (Misconduct Hr'g Report)); see also King v. Zamiara, 150 Fed.Appx. 485, 487-88 (6th Cir.2005) ( King I ) (unpublished opinion). [6] This ticket was subject to administrative review. On review, King was found not guilty of the charge, because Wells had previously told King that toplock would start at midnight, and he was cited for being out of place in the afternoon. R. 1-5, Ex. D (Misconduct Hr'g Report); King I, 150 Fed.Appx. at 487-88. On March 31, 2000, Bonnie Lewis, another Corrections Officer, wrote King a major misconduct ticket for Creating a Disturbance. King IV, 2009 WL 3424221, at . Officer Lewis indicated that while she was instructing several prisoners at the officers' station regarding new clothing rules, the prisoners started to argue and King became disruptive. R. 130-4, Ex. 29 (Misconduct Hr'g Report). However, Assistant Deputy Warden Michael Singleton reported to the hearing officer that he spoke to Lewis and she had retracted her statement. Lewis testified at trial that she did not remember the incident in question or whether Wells had asked her to write the ticket. R. 172 (Trial Tr. II at 205:13-14). Lewis was impeached with her deposition, however, where she testified, I must have been asked to write the statement, I guess. I must have went to the RUM [Sharon Wells], I guess, and talked to the RUM and was asked to write a statement. Id. at 206:1-3 (quoting her deposition). Lewis did not cite any of the other seven prisoners for misconduct relating to that incident, only King. Id. at 206:25-207:5. The hearing officer, whose credibility was not challenged, found King not guilty on April 17, 2000. The officer found Lewis's testimony to be inconsistent and that it was in some respects personal, [7] and he therefore [did] not find the reporter credible as to this prisoner's involvement. R. 130, Ex. 29 (Misconduct Hr'g Report). Three days after the ticket was reversed, on April 20, Wells requested King be removed from her unit in a letter to Deputy Warden Shirlee Harry: I am requesting that this prisoner be removed from Conklin Unit. He is becoming increasingly more powerful in the eyes of the prisoners in Conklin Unit. He has made the statement to a unit officer that these guys in the unit will do what ever I ask If I wanted to cause a disturbance I could anytime. Prisoners have also approached me on several occasions with different types of request and when refused they will either state that they will get someone who will take [care] of it and when the grievance is written it is more often than not written by prisoner King or they will state that they will make sure King knows about this. The most recent situation, in where King was found not guilty of Creating a Disturbance, has boosted King's status in the unit with the prisoners. I believe it should be considered a security risk to the unit officers when prisoner King's authority over other prisoners is higher then the officers working in the unit. I have attached other examples of his behavior to this report. I am asking for permission to move him on the next move day, 4-26-00. R. 11-2, Ex. F (Wells Memo) (mistakes in original); see also King IV, 2009 WL 3424221, at . At trial, Wells could not recall what officer made those statements to her, see R. 172 (Trial Tr. II at 189:24-190:12), and none of the referenced attachments were ever identified by any witness. She also testified that she meant for King to be moved to another unit within Brooks, not another facility. Id. at 193:16-18. The next documented MDOC action is an email from Curtis Chaffee, the transfer coordinator at Brooks, to Chuck Zamiara, a classification specialist at the MDOC Central Office in Lansing (Central Office), indicating that Deputy Harry has asked for this prisoner to be transferred to an alternate Level II. R. 130-3, Ex. 18 (Chaffee/Zamiara Email). Chaffee added: The reason for this request is that he has been at [Brooks] for 6 months during this time, he has developed a cadre of followers over whom he has substantial influence. It seems he can instigate them to create problems (grievances, complaints to Warden's Forum, etc.) while he remains uninvolved directly. Currently, he is printing out grievances about various issues and having other prisoners sign them and send them in. Deputy Harry has asked for a break from prisoner King and would accept him back after a period of time. Id. Chaffee testified that he believed the specific examples of the problems King was creatingfiling grievances and complaints to the Warden's Forumcame from Harry. Had Harry mentioned other forms of misconduct, Chaffee testified that he would have included them. R. 171 (Trial Tr. I at 141:4-21). Chaffee also testified that were it not for King's participation in the filing of grievances and the Warden's Forum, he did not believe King would have been transferred at all. Id. at 142:13-16. Harry confirmed these statements, testifying that the only behavioral issues she was aware of were that King was filing grievances and making complaints to the Warden's Forum. Id. at 120:23-121:1. She did not think he was being manipulative or causing other disruptions. Id. at 127:14-128:2. Zamiara responded forty minutes later to Chaffee saying, Let's send him to URF as a level III, note in the departure, prisoner is preceived [sic] as a disruptive prisoner who is manipulating others to create unrest at LRF. King IV, 2009 WL 3424221, at  (quoting R. 130-3, Ex. 18 (Chaffee/Zamiara Email)). A level III is a more heightened security facility with greater restrictions on a prisoner's movement and access to telephone calls. King IV, 2009 WL 3424221, at . Because King was on a hold list, [8] Zamiara had to obtain approval from Classification Director Nick Ludwick before approving the transfer. After the two discussed the matter, the decision was made that [King] should be transferred to Level III. King IV, 2009 WL 3424221, at . Chaffee admitted that he completed the required security screen review to effectuate the transfer for King prior to contacting Zamiara on May 8, 2000. R. 171 (Trial Tr. I at 135:12-136:12; 146:12-21). Chaffee initially indicated a transfer to a Level II facility in Carson City (DRF) and wrote in that King was manageable in Level II/Remain in Level II. King IV, 2009 WL 3424221, at  (citing R. 130-3, Ex. 16 (Chaffee Screen)). Upon receiving Zamiara's email, Chaffee admitted that he went back to this exact screen and revised it by hand to say URF instead of DRF and scored King at a Level III instead of a Level II. King IV, 2009 WL 3424221, at ; R. 171 (Trial Tr. I at 140:3-11). The review was signed as approved by Wells. R. 130-3, Ex. 16 (Chaffee Screen). On May 12, Chaffee and Berghuis signed the transfer order sending King to Chippewa, a Level III facility. King IV, 2009 WL 3424221, at  (citing R. 130-3, Ex. 26 (Transfer Order)). The stated reason was: Prisoner manipulates other prisoners to be disruptive. Id. The transfer order also indicates that the transfer was approved by Central Office Per email by C. Zamiara 05/08/00. R. 130-3, Ex. 26 (Transfer Order). King was transferred May 17, 2000. A month later, on June 14, Zamiara sent an email directly to Berghuis. King IV, 2009 WL 3424221, at . Zamiara told Berghuis that Peter Govorchin, who was the attorney handling the Cain case for the state, was concerned that the issue of retaliation may be raised over the fact that King's transfer documents were edited by hand. R. 130-3, Ex. 20 (Zamiara/Berghuis Email). Zamiara asked Berghuis to have her staff re-do these and indicate that transfer to URF level III and the one level departure was done because Prisoner King is perceived as a disruptive prisoner who is manipulating others to create unrest at LRF. Id. Zamiara ended his email with a prescient warning: Mr. Govorchin also ask [sic] that I advise you that staff from LRF may be called to court to answer questions concerning Prisoner King's transfer to URF. Id. Chaffee remembered being chewed out by Warden Berghuis over the screen, R. 171 (Trial Tr. I at 133:11-19) (citing R. 130, Ex. 7 (Chaffee Dep. Tr. at 15:1-3)), and that Warden Berghuis then told him to prepare a new screen to replace the old one. R. 171 (Trial Tr. I at 147:24-148:3; 149:7-11). The new screen stated Prisoner manipulates other prisoners to be disruptive/needs higher level of security, in place of Manageable in Level II/Remain in Level II, and was backdated to May 8, 2000. Michael Singleton signed and approved the new screen. At trial, Singleton stated that he had no idea it had been backdated at the time. R. 172 (Trial Tr. II at 212:13-14). While at Chippewa, King continued to object to various people, including Zamiara, regarding his Level III placement, all of whom responded with references to the prior statements regarding his ability to manipulate other prisoners. King IV, 2009 WL 3424221, at . In February, 2001, King was approved for a transfer to Thumb Correctional Facility at a Level II and sent there shortly thereafter. Id. Although not always at the same facility, King has subsequently remained at a Level II.