A prisoner's lawsuit over delayed legal mail was dismissed by a federal court.

Record source: CourtListener

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ______ DIVONE ANTOINE RICE, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:25-cv-1615 v. Honorable Jane M. Beckering J. ICE et al., Defendants. ____________________________/ OPINION This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In a separate Order, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (PLRA), the Court is required to dismiss any prisoner action brought under federal law if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). The Court must read Plaintiff’s pro se complaint indulgently, 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 these standards, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint1 for failure to state a claim. 1 Plaintiff’s complaint was filed on December 1, 2025. (See Compl., ECF No. 1). This Court issued an Order to File Amended Complaint on December 8, 2025, directing Plaintiff to comply with W.D. Mich. LCivR 5.6(a). (Order, ECF No. 4). Plaintiff complied with this Order by filing his amended complaint on December 26, 2025. (See Am. Compl., ECF No. 8). Plaintiff’s amended complaint is the operative complaint in this action. Discussion Factual Allegations Plaintiff is presently incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) at the Marquette Branch Prison (MBP) in Marquette, Marquette County, Michigan. The events about which he complains occurred at the Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility (IBC) in Ionia, Ionia County, Michigan. In this action, Plaintiff sues IBC General Office Assistant J. Ice and Unknown Part(y)(ies) named as IBC Mailroom Staff. (Am. Compl., ECF No. 8, PageID.37.) Plaintiff’s claims arise from events surrounding his litigation of a § 1983 action that Plaintiff previously filed in this Court. (See generally Am. Compl., ECF No. 8). In the present matter, Plaintiff alleges that on March 30, 2024, he “sent a letter to the Clerk of the Court for the U.S. District Court Western District of Michigan requesting a copy of the docket entry sheet for civil case 1:22-cv-00462-JMB-PJG.”2 (Id., PageID.39.) Plaintiff received a copy of the docket entry sheet on April 2, 2024, and “much to his surprise . . . [he] noticed that the docket sheet depicted a Motion for Summary Judgment . . . [and] a Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment . . . with certificate of service and compliance.” (Id.) Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that the docket sheet indicated that both of these documents were filed with the Court on February 20, 2024, but “he [did] not receive[] a copy of the Motion for Summary Judgment alleged to have been mailed to him well over a month since being recorded on the record.”3 (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he “raised his concern of IBC mailroom staff interfering with his access to the court . . . with [non-party staff] ARUS Geison when he made his legal mail rounds.” 2 In this Opinion, the Court corrects the punctuation, capitalization, and abbreviations in quotations from Plaintiff’s filings. 3 Although not specifically alleged by Plaintiff, the mail at issue was likely mailed by the Michigan Department of Attorney General, who represented the defendants in Plaintiff’s previous civil rights case before this Court. See Rice v. Unknown Bryce et al., No. 1:22-cv-462 (W.D. Mich.). (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he asked non-party Geison what he should do about “not receiving [his] legal mail because IBC mailroom staff never delivered [his] legal mail . . . and made [him] miss a deadline.” (Id.) Non-party Geison responded, “‘Only thing [Plaintiff] c[ould] do is write a grievance on IBC mailroom staff.’” (Id.) Plaintiff also claims that non-party Geison informed Plaintiff that Defendant Ice was the General Office Assistant for mailroom personnel. (Id.) Plaintiff’s complaint further alleges several issues with his grievances and the responses he received. (See id., PageID.39–40.) Plaintiff claims he filed a “Step I grievance on IBC Mailroom Staff on April 2, 2024.” (Id., PageID.39.) On April 12, 2024, Plaintiff “received the legal mail at matter.” (Id., PageID.40.) When Plaintiff received his legal mail, he asked non-party Corrections Officer (CO) Smith “why it had taken almost two months to finally receive his legal mail,” and CO Smith responded, “Stop filing grievances and lawsuits, then MDOC will get you your legal mail on time.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that on April 24, 2024, he “received a [grievance] response from Defendant J. Ice . . . concerning the legal mail violations.” (Id.) In the grievance response, Defendant Ice stated: “The legal mail in question was sent to the Control Center, given to [Plaintiff], and a signed receipt by the officer and inmate was returned to the mailroom.” (Id.) Plaintiff claims this grievance response was “in violation of [the MDOC’s] Grievance Policy Directive.” (Id.) After Plaintiff submitted a Step II Grievance Appeal, he received a response from non-party IBC Warden McCauley on September 10, 2024. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that the Warden’s grievance response was issued on August 12, 2024, but Plaintiff did not receive it for a month. (See id.) Warden McCauley’s grievance response stated: “A review of records supports [Plaintiff’s] contentions that the mail was not processed in a timely manner. This matter was reviewed and addressed with appropriate staff.” (Id.) On an unspecified date, Plaintiff claims he “wrote a letter to the U.S. District Court Clerk requesting for the clerks to document that [Plaintiff] never received any motions that were logged in the record as being sent to him by the defendants . . . and that IBC Administration is actively interfering with his legal mail.” (Id.) Plaintiff then states that “Defendants J. Ice and IBC Mailroom Staff’s practice of not delivering legal mail in a timely manner . . . [i]s a retaliatory means to sabotage prisoners’ . . . ability to effectively petition the courts against the MDOC.” (Id.) Plaintiff claims that “many other prisoners are faced with the same type of retaliatory mail violations practiced by MDOC personnel.” (Id., PageID.41.) Plaintiff lists the following practices of the MDOC’s personnel: “Not allowing / refusing attorneys . . . to leave with them, through staff, any copies of the prisoners’ appeal paperwork, contrary to MDOC policy,” “re-routing legal mail through the regular mail process . . . [which] allow[s] mailroom staff . . . to open, read, and copy the legal mail,” and “refusing to deliver mail from verified attorneys or law firms and district courts.” (Id.) Plaintiff concludes that these “practice[s] ha[ve] caused him harm and injury by Defendants J. Ice and co-worker[s] IBC Mailroom Staff in diminishing his ability to receive n

Official opinion source