Thompson 726007 v. Zwikler, 1:13-cv-00167

Background

Thompson, a state prisoner, files a pro se 42 U.S.C. §1983 action in the Western District of Michigan alleging First Amendment violations related to his legal mail and privacy.
Defendants are Sergeant Unknown Zwikler, Prison Official Robert Ault, and Grievance Coordinator M. Breedlove.
On January 14, 2013, Zwikler allegedly failed to deliver one of two legal mail letters, leaving it in another unit and later locating an opened DOJ letter on January 16.
Thompson claims the DOJ letter was opened in violation of MDOC Policy Directive 05.03.118, which requires in-person opening, thereby raising First Amendment/privacy concerns.
Thompson sought to file a grievance but was on modified access; Breedlove’s approval was required, and it is unclear whether he received a grievance form.
Thompson also alleges that Ault did not mail an oversized envelope, instead signing for postage, reading, and disposing of the letter.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Breelove’s liability for failing to provide a grievance form	Breedlove failed to provide forms, enabling misconduct.	No active unconstitutional conduct; supervisor liability requires more than failure to act.	Breedlove dismissed for failure to state claim.
Existence of a due process right to a grievance procedure	There is a constitutionally protected grievance process right.	There is no due process right to an effective grievance procedure.	No due process right; no state-created liberty interest in grievance procedures.
Whether Zwikler and Ault's handling of legal mail violated Thompson's First Amendment	Mail was mishandled to obstruct Thompson’s access to courts.	Allegations insufficient to show active unconstitutional behavior by these officers.	Allegations deemed sufficient to allow service; not dismissed on this issue at this stage.

Key Cases Cited

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading plausibility standard for §1983 claims)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard and rejection of conclusory pleadings)
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (U.S. 1988) (requires state action to violate constitutional rights)
Grinter v. Knight, 532 F.3d 567 (6th Cir. 2008) (supervisory liability requires active participation, not mere failure to act)
Greene v. Barber, 310 F.3d 889 (6th Cir. 2002) (supervisory liability not based on mere failure to act or denial of grievances)
Summers v. Leis, 368 F.3d 881 (6th Cir. 2004) (supervisory liability standard and constitutional violation proof requirements)
Shehee v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295 (6th Cir. 1999) (supervisory liability limits for constitutional claims)
Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1983) (no liberty interest in state-grievance procedures)
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (U.S. 1996) (actual injury requirement for access-to-courts claim)
Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (U.S. 1977) (right of access to the courts via grievance mechanisms)
Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (U.S. 1994) (definition of rights and government culpability in §1983 actions)
Dominguez v. Corr. Med. Servs., 555 F.3d 543 (6th Cir. 2009) (§1983 framework and rights implicated by prison medical/administrative actions)
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (U.S. 1988) (as above)
Everson v. Leis, 556 F.3d 484 (6th Cir. 2009) (federal habeas-like standards in §1983 context)
Walker v. Mich. Dep't of Corr., 128 F. App’x 441 (6th Cir. 2005) (no constitutional right to a grievance procedure; actual injury requirement)