Thomas v. Ledbetter
Filing
37
OPINION: The Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment is denied (d/e 31 ). (SEE WRITTEN OPINION.) Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 4/3/2017. (GL, ilcd)
E-FILED
Monday, 03 April, 2017 03:08:58 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LEO THOMAS,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
BRIAN LEDBETTER,
Defendant.
15-CV-3280
OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge.
Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated in the Danville
Correctional Center, pursues a claim that Defendant, a correctional
officer, retaliated against Plaintiff for Plaintiff’s exercise of his
protected First Amendment activity during Plaintiff’s incarceration in
the Hill Correctional Center. The claimed retaliation included verbal
harassment, goading, and threats; withholding of Plaintiff’s property;
false accusations against Plaintiff both orally and in a false
disciplinary ticket; causing Plaintiff’s segregation; causing Plaintiff’s
transfer to the Pinckneyville Correctional Center; and the
destruction or theft of Plaintiff’s property before the property was
transferred to Pinckneyville.
1
Defendant moves for partial summary judgment. He argues
that he wrote the disciplinary ticket charging Plaintiff with insolence
and disobeying a direct order because Plaintiff glared at Defendant
during a line movement in order to provoke Defendant and then
refused several direct orders to step out of line. A jury could agree,
but, looking at the record in Plaintiff’s favor regarding this incident,
a jury could alternatively conclude that Defendant first tried to
fabricate a charge that Plaintiff had tried to assault Defendant, and
when that did not work, wrote a false disciplinary ticket for a lesser
charge. (Pl.’s Dep. 37-38.) A reasonable inference arises that
Defendant, who worked in the property department at the time, was
angry that Plaintiff had contacted Defendant’s superior and then
wrote grievances against Defendant. (Pl.’s Dep. 10-11, 24-33.) At
this stage, the Court must draw competing inferences in Plaintiff’s
favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
The fact that the disciplinary committee found Plaintiff guilty of
one of the charges—disobeying a direct order— does not necessarily
mean that Defendant was not motivated in part by retaliation. A
rational juror could find that Defendant would not have written the
2
ticket absent a retaliatory motive. Nor is the finding of the
disciplinary committee binding on the jury.
Citing Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541, 555 (7th Cir. 2009),
Defendant also argues that Plaintiff suffered no adverse
consequence from the insolence charge on the disciplinary ticket
because Plaintiff was found not guilty on that charge. Bridges does
state that “[a] single retaliatory disciplinary charge that is later
dismissed is insufficient to serve as the basis of a § 1983 action.”
Id. But that is not what happened here. Plaintiff paints a picture of
several retaliatory acts and harassment over months, not just one
disciplinary charge that was later dismissed. Further, Plaintiff did
suffer a consequence from the disciplinary ticket—his placement in
investigatory segregation and his grade demotion, even if that
demotion was for only the disobeying charge. All of the claimed
retaliation, considered as a whole, was serious enough to deter a
person of ordinary firmness from engaging in protected First
Amendment activity, or at least a jury could so find. See Bridges,
557 at 552 (7th Cir. 2009)(allegations of a variety of harassment by
numerous employees over months was actionable retaliation, even if
incidents were not independently actionable).
3
Defendant also argues that there is no evidence that he was
involved in the alleged destruction or theft of Plaintiff’s property or
Plaintiff’s transfer to a different prison. Plaintiff maintains that his
property was missing when he arrived at Pinckneyville Correctional
Center, after his transfer from Hill Correctional Center. Some of the
property that Plaintiff did receive was broken and had been urinated
on, according to Plaintiff. (Pl.’s Dep. 84-88.)
Plaintiff’s evidence that Defendant was responsible for the
property destruction and theft is circumstantial, but the evidence is
sufficient to allow an inference of access and animus on Defendant’s
part. Defendant worked in the property office, at least for part of the
relevant time, so arguably had access to Plaintiff’s property.
Defendant’s purported threats, harassment, and false accusations
against Plaintiff allow an inference of animus. A jury could find that
Defendant had the motive and means to interfere with Plaintiff’s
property.
As for Plaintiff’s transfer, a reasonable inference arguably
arises that Defendant knew that his false accusations and
harassment of Plaintiff would eventually cause Plaintiff’s transfer
out of the prison. The Court is unsure whether the transfer was
4
actually adverse because Plaintiff had been asking for a transfer and
both Hill and Pinckneyville are medium security facilities. However,
these questions are for the jury.
In sum, the record allows a reasonable inference that
Defendant was out to get Plaintiff for complaining to Defendant’s
superior and for writing grievances about Defendant. (Pl.’s Dep. 1011, 24-33.) A reasonable jury could find that Defendant’s actions
were taken in furtherance of that plan and that Plaintiff suffered
actionable harm. Defendant’s argument for qualified immunity fails
because the argument requires drawing competing inferences in
Defendant’s favor, which the Court cannot do at the summary
judgment stage. See, e.g., Petties v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722, 734 (7th
Cir. 2016)(disputed facts about defendants’ state of mind precludes
qualified immunity on summary judgment).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for
partial summary judgment is denied (d/e 31).
ENTER: April 3, 2017
FOR THE COURT:
s/ SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?