One of Brian Legghio's theorems of life in criminal court is that the prosecution is always more adept at using the media. He considered a story that broke in the combined Sunday edition of The Detroit News and Free Press on Sunday, August 20, a classic example.
With the trial four days old, Detroit News reporter Joel Kurth wrote that Fletcher was establishing quite a reputation as a jailhouse lawyer, a story that provided comic relief for observers during recesses when the trial resumed the next day.
The story ran on the front page of the Metro section under the headline: "Jailed lawyer busy with beefs."
"A novice attorney, Michael Fletcher's legal career never quite took off, but he's using his stay in Oakland County Jail to hone his skills," read Kurth's lead paragraph.
He was honing his skills and adding significantly to the enmity in which jail officials held him. In his months behind bars, Fletcher, given inmate number 267103 and assigned to cell D-2-10, had become the most litigious inmate in memory, filing complaints over the reading material he was allowed to bring to court, over not being allowed to hang his laundry in his cell on a clothesline fashioned from a sheet, and over what he said was a lack of exercise time.
Fletcher even filed grievances over not being given more than one grievance form at a time, over being asked what a grievance was about—he said, "the right to silence is absolute"—and over what he termed were one deputy's "two-toned grunt" and "simian gestures" when Fletcher asked him about how to prevent "mold, mildew and various forms of bacteria" in his cell. Fletcher alleged, among other things, that jail officials had violated his Fifth and First Amendment rights.
On May 19, 2000, in fact, Fletcher took the grievance process one step further, filing a federal lawsuit in the Eastern District of Michigan over the exercise issue.
The court file held copies of Fletcher's various typewritten complaints over the preceding months, as well as responses by jail officials. Excerpts are noteworthy for their insights into his thought processes, and for the haughtiness (spiced with convoluted syntax and occasionally poor punctuation) with which he addressed jail officials, even using the royal "we" in writing to them.
Dec. 15, 1999—A grievance by Fletcher reads, in part:
Please be advised that this grievance is being filed for purposes of notice and maintaining a record within this facility. The nature of this grievance is one of generality. That is, it seeks to address the problems at an administrative level as opposed to any individual agent or policy. I have requested the opportunity to review the policies/rules/regulations by which the inmates of this facility are required to adhere. My verbal requests were summarily denied, and a written request responded in like.
These "policies" (whether or not such exist), are cited generally as the authority for such actions by agents of this facility (examples): Destruction/confiscation of personal property, definition/restriction of religion and/or "religious materials," physical appearances for court proceedings.
Given the fact that policies are unavailable for review, it is impossible to determine which agents are acting in accordance and under what circumstances. The application of authority is terribly inconsistent from one officer to the next, or from one inmate to another. There is unfettered discretion of the personnel enforcing these policies, as inmates are forced to accept the word of such agents as to whether the particular policy actually exists, and/or whether such policy applies in a given circumstance, and/ or whether such is being applied correctly … these practices are subject to civil liabilities, and given the number of possible claimants, such liabilities may be tried through class action status suits.
Please acknowledge the receipt of this grievance by signature, and maintain the yellow copy with my inmate file. If there is a problem with this request, please advise. Thank you.
Deputy James Smith filed a memorandum the next day.
I interviewed Mr. Fletcher at approximately 1400 hours today with Deputy R. Garcia present. The interview lasted approximately five minutes. I asked Mr. Fletcher if he had received our inmate guide book when he was booked into our facility, and he acknowledged that he had indeed received this item. I then informed him that just as I had told him when he initially asked for the grievance forms that I would be the officer investigating any allegations contained in the grievance in an attempt to ascertain their legitimacy. I asked what specific instances of "unreasonable behavior" by any of the Sheriff Dept. "agents" he was referring to in his grievance form.
He refused to tell me of any single instance. I was informed that he was not an employee of the Sheriff's Dept. and thus he was under no requirement to tell me anything. He said the matter was strictly for the administration and that they should know how to handle it or else they weren't very
good at their jobs. I informed him that I was acting on behalf of the administration in an attempt to rectify any problems he might be having and to ensure that he would be treated professionally at all times while incarcerated here.
He would simply not list a single event that I could then look into for any validity. When I asked him how he expected me to answer these allegations of misconduct or mismanagement he merely stated that was my problem and he was under no obligation to aid me in the endeavor. At this point I ended the interview as it was proving fruitless and had Deputy Garcia place Mr. Fletcher back into cell D-2-10.
Dec. 29, 1999—Mick writes on an inmate communication form to jail officials:
Please be advised that on 12-15-99 a complaint (grievance) form was submitted [with] a request for a photocopy of the grievance and a signed acknowledgment … I have received no written response or photocopies. I am reiterating the request of 12–15. If said request is denied for any reason, please indicate such on this, returning the white copy to me (as indicated on form). Thank you for your attention in this regard.
Dec. 30, 1999—Fletcher writes on another inmate communication form:
Please be advised that on 12-14-99 I was informed by Sup. Smith that it was against regulation to allow me to possess any books that were not considered "religious material" while being held in the court lockup area. The book which I had in my possession at the time was confiscated, and returned to me when I was brought back. I am requesting the opportunity to review the regulation to which Sup. Smith refers, as well as the operable definition of the term "religious materials," insofar as such is defined for purposes of the aforementioned regulation. I further would request to review the policy which authorizes personnel of this facility to make determinations concerning "religious materials."
If this request is deemed unreasonable or is denied for any reason, please indicate below, and respond accordingly. Thank you for your attention in this regard.
Lt. Charles Swaney responded on the bottom of the form and returned it:
Mr. Fletcher,
It is sufficient for a supervisor to tell you what the rules are. I am not going to have a search done for a policy that was written several years ago when it became apparent the security for persons waiting to attend court proceedings needed measures established to prevent contraband being taken to court. Officer safety is the obvious reason for such a measure. I am not going to debate what is defined as "religious material" with you, but for the purpose of the rule, a bible or Holy Quran would be acceptable.
Jan. 9, 2000—Fletcher files another reply to Lt. Snarey over the memo of
Dec. 30.
Your response indicates that a misunderstanding exists. Your apprehension, with regard to entering into debate with me, is flattering, but altogether unnecessary. What I requested was a definition of the term "religious materials," as applied. In the alternative, we would be satisfied with an explanation as to why the book I was in possession of on 12-14-99 did not fit said definition. One will, for reasons apparent, obviate the other.
I am appreciative of your offering of a rationale for this particular policy. While the notion that "religious materials" offer a measure of safety to officers that other forms of literature do not is not logically apparent to myself, we would be interested as to why such is "obvious" to you. At this time however, the purpose for such policies is not urgent. If and when such becomes necessary, we will be conducting exhaustive research in this regard.
Furthermore, your use of the term "a bible" [sic] obviates the need for any "religious" content whatsoever. Ergo, I shall consider this an error as well.
Jan. 26—Fletcher files a grievance, saying:
On 1/22/00 Dep. D. Nash ordered myself to remove one clothesline from my cell, said clothesline was full of wet laundry at the time. Nash advised it was a violation to have a clothesline in my cell. In over five months of residence, this was the first time I had ever heard of this "rule."
I inquired of Nash as to how we were to effectively dry our clothing after washing it. His response was little more than a two-tone grunt, accompanied by shrugged shoulders. To me, this simian gesture was indicative of two things in his regard; the most relevant of which being his inability to answer the question.
This facility provides inmates with laundry soap. I assumed that such provision is made in order to promote proper hygiene, such as is conducive to a clean and healthy (in relative terms, of course) environment … Without the ability to dry clothes by more conventional means, it is necessary to suspend them evenly to dry in order to avoid undesirable (indeed, unhealthy) results. Without the ability to "hang one's laundry out to dry," the act of washing one's clothing becomes an exercise in the cultivation of mold, mildew and various forms of bacteria.
Given that this facility is responsible for the health and well-being of its' [sic] residents, I should think that this matter be addressed in timely fashion. Under the present circumstances, it appears as though cleanliness has itself become a proscribed condition.
Lt. Susan Steinhelper responds.
Your cell provides hooks for your clothing. The torn sheet that you were previously using as a clothes line is contraband as the sheet was being used for a purpose other than what a sheet is used for. Deputy Nash could have requested that you be issued a ticket for possession of contraband and/or destruction of jail property. In lieu of tickets, Deputy Nash chose to remove the torn sheet from your possession.
One solution to your personal dilemma would be not to wash all your clothes at one time. The second solution would be to dry flat. Your grievance is not a grievable issue; denied.
Feb. 10—Fletcher files another grievance.
Please be advised that on 2/5/00, an incident occurred which I believed necessary to document as a matter of record, and notify the department and facility of said occurrence. I requested of Dep. B. Mansell three (3) grievance forms. He stated that he would do so. Later, Mansell returned and handed one (1) form to me. He then began to interrogate me as to the nature of the grievance(s) I wished to file. I advised him that I wished to file two (2) separate grievances, one of which would require two (2) forms to complete. I further advised Mansell that I wished to file written grievances so that the record of such would be clear, and that I had a right not to be interrogated regarding the matter.
Mansell then advised me that Sup. Delagarza refused to provide me with the forms without my submission to his ordered interrogation … To my knowledge, this is the only established method of drawing the Dept.'s attention to grievous matters, allowing same to be addressed prior to entering into costly litigation, for which the insurance carrier(s) of the Dept. and Facility will be ultimately responsible for.
Copies of this grievance were also mailed to Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard, who directed Snarey to review the grievance and to respond both to him and to Snarey's superior, Captain Wallace.
Snarey wrote:
I would be more than happy to give unlimited grievances to inmates like this, but if I don't require the Officers to communicate with the inmates, how are the Officers going to learn what they are supposed to be accused of doing? Mr. Fletcher has written several grievances and has had them answered, however, if he took the time to talk to the Officers, most of his perceived problems could have been taken care of before it came to the stage of filing a written grievance.
I don't believe the inmate's rights were infringed upon. The Officer simply wanted to know if he could do anything to head off a formal grievance being written, however, Mr. Fletcher was unreasonable thinking he didn't have to converse with the Officer at all.
Snarey then wrote Fletcher:
You are correct that you should have received blank grievance forms when you requested them, however, you are wrong to assume the Deputy shall not ask questions as to the nature of the grievance. How are the Deputies to correct perceived grievable issues if they are not aware of them. [sic] You will agree, in all grievance procedures, the first order is to settle grievances at the first step with a verbal communication. Even you, Mr. Fletcher, will be expected to verbally communicate
your perceived grievance before you are given a blank form. Further, you will submit grievances on the forms provided. Any future grievances typed in free format will be returned to you in their entirety.
March 15—Uncharacteristically, Fletcher takes three weeks to respond to Snarey's orders, but does so with a flourish and this time sends a copy to Bill Martin, the state director of the Department of Corrections, in the state capital in Lansing.
The above named "response" that has been issued is in fact non-response with regard to the grievance it purports to address. It presumes that I will forgo and waive my absolute rights as a result of your coercive applications of policy. Further, it bespeaks expectations and/or duties which do not exist, and which you are without lawful authority to enforce.
The right to remain silent is absolute. I, along with every other resident of this facility, may exercise this right or not at our discretion. Even you, Mr. Snarey, are bound by restrictions placed upon the agents of government by state and federal constitutions. By subjecting myself and others to grievous acts and/or conditions, you are in effect, forcing inmates to waive constitutional rights in order to avail themselves of your policies, and any remedies which might be available. Your behavior in this regard is not only grievous in and of itself, it is illegal.
I will not agree that verbal communication is the first course of conduct a prisoner awaiting trial should engage in. Your use of the word "perceived" is most appropriate to support my premise. Assuming that the staff possesses some minimus of literacy, deputies should be able to read and respond … I disregard whatever expectations you may have as to what manner of correspondence I should utilize. I will correspond by whatever means best serves and/or satisfies any legal requirements or notice, for our purposes.
May 19—A class-action federal civil-rights lawsuit is filed by Fletcher and assigned to Judge Paul Borman of the U.S. District Court's Eastern District of Michigan. Named as defendants are Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard and Lt. Charles Snarey.
Fletcher files suit over what he claims is a lack of outdoor exercise time.
I have been awaiting trial in this facility since 8/19/99. During that time, I have only been allowed outside for fresh air and sunshine for one hour. My requests to be allowed outside have been repeatedly denied. They have advised me that one hour, per week in the gymnasium is adequate. The gymnasium has no windows, nor ventilation for fresh air. It is my understanding that this policy applies to all prisoners of this facility.
Fletcher asked that the court issue an order
directing the Oakland County Sheriff's Department/Oakland County Jail, to allow all inmates the opportunity to have one hour, per day, five days per week out of doors, for fresh air and sunlight.
The Sheriff's Department filed a memorandum on May 22.
According to the Recreation Log Book, Inmate Michael Fletcher #267103 has been offered recreation a minimum of 16 times since his incarceration. The recreation has been offered in the gym due to the winter season and bad weather. Inmate Fletcher has told our deputies repeatedly that he will only go to recreation when it is outside and has refused to attend recreation when it is in the gym.… Deputy Bailey advised me that Inmate Fletcher refused recreation this morning, 05-22-00, because it was in the gym and not outside.