Law360 (September 14, 2026, 8:05 PM EDT) -- The Sixth Circuit revived a lawsuit brought by a Michigan prisoner challenging prison officials for confiscating a book written by his sister, reversing a trial court decision that had granted summary judgment to the defendant after finding the prisoner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

In a published decision, the three-judge panel said Thursday that the lower court did not properly apply summary judgment standards. It noted that prison mailroom clerk Sherry Payton failed to provide a record proving that prisoner Danyale Tubbs received a decision about the book in time to render his grievance untimely.

Tubbs has said Payton engaged in "unjust censorship" and infringed upon his procedural due process.

The panel remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.

Tubbs received notice in March 2022 that a book written by his sister, who is a survivor of childhood sexual assault, was being withheld from his mail delivery by Payton. The notice said the book was being held because it contained details about the rape of a child, which could encourage or provide instruction for the commission of criminal activity.

Tubbs said he followed Michigan Department of Corrections grievance guidelines to the letter and requested an administrative hearing as soon as he learned that his sister's book was being withheld. Tubbs said a hearing took place in April 2022 during which prison counselor Emitt Short said Tubbs should have received the book because it was written from a self-help perspective.

Tubbs said he left that meeting thinking he was getting the book but he never received it. He learned in May that the MDOC central office administrators intervened to override Short's view that Tubbs should receive the book and instead placed it on a restricted publications list.

Tubbs claimed he didn't learn the rejection was final until he received a copy of a hearing report on May 9, 2022, and he then filed his grievance that same day. Michigan prison policy dictates that a prisoner has five days to file a grievance once they receive a hearing decision.

Tubbs' grievance was rejected in July 2022, in a final decision, and he filed his lawsuit later that month.

The MDOC challenged Tubbs' timeline of when the administrative hearings occurred, claiming that the first hearing took place in March and that he waited too long to file his grievance. However, Tubbs produced a signed report showing there were hearings in April and May, while Payton and the MDOC submitted an unsigned document that never mentioned a second hearing and produced no records of hearings prior to April 5.

"The general rule is that where relevant information is in the possession of one party and not provided, then an adverse inference may be drawn that such information would be harmful to the party who fails to provide it," the panel wrote. 

The panel said it expected the MDOC would have kept track of its hearings and provided a report from Short regarding the April hearing.

Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Judges Eric L. Clay, Julia Smith Gibbons and Rachel S. Bloomekatz sat on the panel.

Danyale Tubbs is represented by Stephanie Katz of Goodwin Procter LLP.

Sherry Payton is represented by Joshua Smith of the Michigan Attorney General's Office. 

The case is Danyale Tubbs v. Sherry Payton, case number 25-1950, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

--Editing by Linda Voorhis.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.