Hailey 575198 v. Cieply, 1:20-cv-01248

Plaintiff Jerome Mendell Hailey, a Michigan state prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First Amendment retaliation by Unit Chief Larry Cieply and Psychologist Jacquelyn Williams for prior grievances, which resulted in placement in administrative segregation and initiation of a SPON after his October 2020 transfer to MTU.
On initial review the court found Hailey stated a plausible retaliation claim and allowed the First Amendment claims against Cieply and Williams to proceed.
Defendants moved for summary judgment solely on the ground that Hailey failed to exhaust MDOC administrative remedies before filing suit, as required by the PLRA.
MDOC grievance records and affidavits from the MTU Grievance Coordinator and MDOC Grievance Section Manager show no Step I–III grievances or appeals filed by Hailey during the relevant period; the only kite logged was unrelated.
Hailey produced handwritten/unfiled grievance forms and declared he submitted them to the grievance coordinator and that an officer’s hostile remark rendered remedies unavailable.
The magistrate judge concluded Hailey’s unfiled forms and conclusory assertion of unavailability were contradicted by the record and insufficient to create a genuine dispute; recommended granting summary judgment and terminating the action.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hailey exhausted administrative remedies under the PLRA before filing suit	Hailey says he prepared and submitted Step I/appeal forms (Oct 16–23, 2020) to MTU grievance coordinator and thus exhausted remedies	MDOC records and affidavits show no Step I–III grievances or appeals filed regarding Cieply or Williams during the period	No exhaustion — summary judgment recommended (Hailey’s evidence contradicted by records)
Whether administrative remedies were "unavailable" (excusing exhaustion)	Hailey contends a corrections officer’s threatening remark made grievance process unavailable	Defendants point to absence of any record and argue a verbal threat does not render procedures unavailable	Unavailability not shown — threat was conclusory and no nexus to inability to file; does not excuse exhaustion

Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378 (6th Cir. 1999) (elements of a prisoner First Amendment retaliation claim)
Smith v. Campbell, 250 F.3d 1032 (6th Cir. 2001) (protected conduct must be a substantial or motivating factor)
Mount Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (U.S. 1977) (burden-shifting on motive in retaliation context)
Copeland v. Machulis, 57 F.3d 476 (6th Cir. 1995) (summary judgment burdens and nonmoving party proof requirement)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (U.S. 2007) (courts need not accept versions of facts that are blatantly contradicted by the record)
Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (U.S. 2002) (PLRA exhaustion requirement for prisoner actions)
Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (U.S. 2001) (exhaustion required even if relief sought is not available in grievance process)
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (U.S. 2007) (proper exhaustion requires compliance with procedural rules)
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2006) (exhaustion requires compliance with deadlines and procedural rules)
Bell v. Konteh, 450 F.3d 651 (6th Cir. 2006) (grievance must give fair notice of the claim alleged)
Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632 (U.S. 2016) (PLRA requires exhaustion of available remedies; defines "unavailable" exception)