Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

William Gray v. Michael Johnson

May 15, 2011


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable B. Lynn Winmill Chief U. S. District Judge


On January 3, 2011, Plaintiff, an Idaho prisoner, filed his 112-page Complaint. Dkt. 2. The Clerk conditionally filed the Complaint pending the Court's initial review. Plaintiff also seeks permission to proceed in forma pauperis. Since the Complaint was filed, Plaintiff filed an additional 224 pages of materials he would like the Court to review when analyzing his claims. Dkts. 7, 8.

The Court is required to screen prisoner and in forma pauperis complaints seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A. The Court must dismiss a complaint or any portion thereof that states a frivolous or malicious claim, that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Having reviewed the record, and otherwise being fully informed, the Court enters the following Order.


1. Plaintiff's Allegations

In the original Complaint, Plaintiff identified 39 Defendants to this action: Michael Johnson, Kim Spaulding, Hammer, Ame Angelleti, Tyler Nicodemus, Vicki Hansen, Shannon Nickols, A. Clausen, Dwayne Arrol Shed, Ambrose Richardson, Perle, Harris, Phieffer, Carver, Laura Ashford, Travis Watts, Lenoard King, Flemming Greene, Melodee Armfield, Danthforth, Phillip Valdez, Archibald, Daniel Prado, Charlie Leeds, Teresa Carlin, Amy Anderson, Shirley Roane, Kristi Lynch, Siegler, Oleson, Jack Fernandez, Carrick, Kathy Davidson, Paul Delapain, Darrell Stammer, David King, Mechlin, Develbiss, and Wright. Some of the Defendants work for the Idaho Department of Corrections ("IDOC"), others for the Corrections Corporation of America ("CCA").

Plaintiff's allegations begin when he was housed at the Idaho Maximum Security Institution ("IMSI"). The allegations also include events that occurred after Plaintiff was transferred to the Idaho Correctional Center ("ICC") in November 2009 and events that occurred after he was transferred to the Idaho Correctional Institute in Orofino ("ICI-O") in April 2010.

The gravamen of Plaintiff's claim is that he has been treated differently than other inmates in retaliation for his litigation activity. However, the alleged retaliatory conduct does not, on its face, appear to stem from a retaliatory motive. In addition, after reading Plaintiff's allegations thoroughly, the Court does not see any conduct that rises to a constitutional level of concern. Accordingly, the Complaint must be dismissed.

The following allegations are a summary of a large portion of Plaintiff's allegations. Plaintiff lists the allegations in a narrative form without tying the allegations to a specific claim against a specific Defendant. Therefore, even if the allegations were consistent with a constitutional claim, the Court cannot determine what claim and against whom.

For example, in February 2009, immediately after Plaintiff mailed a complaint against IDOC in a state 1983 action, Plaintiff alleges he received a disciplinary offense report ("DOR") for having cleaning rags in his cell. The DOR was later dismissed.

In August 2009, prison officials told Plaintiff his cell smelled bad and needed to be cleaned. Plaintiff was sent to the showers, his personal items were placed in the day room, and another inmate cleaned his cell. Afterwards, Plaintiff discovered his radio had been stolen. Plaintiff believes that prison officials told other inmates about the cell cleaning, so Plaintiff would be targeted and subject to attacks.

In September 2009, a prison official took a bird feather from Plaintiff's cell. The bird feather was very special to Plaintiff, because it symbolized his mother, who loved birds. Plaintiff admits that he did not have permission to keep the bird feather in his cell but also claims that it was taken away as an act of retaliation for his litigation activity.

In early October 2009, Plaintiff was told he was going to be moved. He states that he gathered his things in preparation for the move but expressed concern about the move. Plaintiff was issued a DOR for refusing to move, and the DOR was dismissed two weeks later.

In late October 2009, Plaintiff participated in an administrative segregation review process to determine whether Plaintiff could live safely on a tier with members of the prison gang, the Aryan Knights. Plaintiff states he wanted to be placed in a tier ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.