Monroe v. Poret et al

Filing 67

RULING: The Defendant's 28 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies is DENIED. The Plaintiff's 31 Cross Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; and this matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings as may be necessary. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 12/3/2014. (SMG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
BILLY MONROE (#103355)
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 13-376-SDD-SCR
TROY PORET, ET AL.
RULING
The Court has carefully considered the Complaint1, the record, the law applicable
to this action, and the Report and Recommendation2 of United States Magistrate Judge
Stephen C. Riedlinger dated October 27, 2014. Plaintiff has filed an Objection3 which
the Court has also considered.
For the reasons which follow, the Court declines to adopt the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
I.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND AND CLAIMS REMAINING
A brief discussion of the procedural background is necessary in order to clarify

what claims remain. Defendants have previously filed a 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss
asserting Eleventh Amendment Immunity and Qualified Immunity.4 The Magistrate
Judge issued a Report and Recommendation5 which was adopted by the Court,6 which
granted in part and denied in part the Defendants’ Motion. In the Court’s Order adopting
the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on the Motion to Dismiss this
Court ordered:

1

Rec. Doc. 1.
Rec. Doc. 65.
3
Rec. Doc. 66.
4
Rec. Doc. 25
5
Rec. Doc. 27.
6
Rec. Doc. 32.
2

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is granted in part, dismissing all of the
Plaintiff's claims except the Plaintiff's claim that the Defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his safety when they housed him in a cell with a
known mentally ill inmate. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate
Judge for further proceedings on the Plaintiff's deliberate indifference
claim.
In reviewing the record, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has also plead a claim of
retaliation for the exercise of First Amendment rights, which was not addressed in the
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and, accordingly, remains viable, notwithstanding
language to the contrary in the Court’s Order cited above.
II.

LEGAL ANALYSIS
Defendant’s now move for summary dismissal of the Plaintiff’s deliberate

indifference claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.7 Plaintiff has filed a
cross motion.8 After a review of the record, the Court finds that the Plaintiff, Billy
Monroe, has complied with the PLRA9 and exhausted the administrative remedies
available to him.10
In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that, after filing a grievance,11 the Defendants
retaliated against him by placing him in administrative isolation and “fabricating”
disciplinary actions against him.12 Plaintiff filed a second administrative grievance13
alleging that Defendants retaliated against him “for seeking an administrative grievance”
and because his family members filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice
concerning the circumstances which formed the basis of his earlier grievance. In his
second grievance (ARP 2012-3105), Monroe complained that “on April 18, 2012 I filed a
7

Rec. Doc. 28.
Rec. Doc. 31.
9
Prison Litigation Reform Act.
10
42 USC 1997e(a).
11
LSP ARP 2012-1177.
12
Rec. Doc. 1.
13
Rec. Doc. 5-2; LSP ARP 2012-3105, October 4, 2012.
8

Request for Administrative Remedy (Ref. LSP 2012-1177) [and] ask that I not be
retaliated against for seeking adm. grievance but the retaliation has not stop”. Among
other things, Monroe complained of retaliatory cell assignments. He complained that “on
at least three (3) occasions” Defendants, Asst. Warden Troy Poret, Col. James Cruze,
and Maj. William Richardson “assigned only offenders with mental backgrounds and on
mental health medications under the care of the prison psychiatrists as part of
vengeance and retaliation. . .”,14 On March 16, 2013, six months after Monroe filed
APR 2012-3105 complaining about retaliatory cell assignments, and only 3 days after
the ARP process concluded,15 Monroe was stabbed by Anthony Armstrong, an allegedly
mentally ill inmate assigned to Monroe’s cell.16

While deliberate indifference is a

discreet violation of the Eighth Amendment, in this particular case, the alleged
indifference may also be evidence of alleged retaliation.
“The elements of a claim under a retaliation theory are the plaintiff's invocation of
‘a specific constitutional right’, the defendant's intent to retaliate against the plaintiff for
his or her exercise of that right, a retaliatory adverse act, and causation.17
In Richard v. Martin,18 the Fifth Circuit found “problematic” the District Court’s
dismissal of a pro se prisoner’s “claim of retaliation in connection with his placement in
solitary confinement after filing a grievance regarding his medical care”. The Court of
Appeal found that “[o]n their face, Richard's allegations state a claim for retaliation. He
invoked his First Amendment right to file a grievance and asserts that [correctional

14

Rec. Doc. 5-2, p. 20.
Rec. Doc. 5-2, LSP Second Step Response dated 3/13/2013.
16
Rec. Doc. 31-2, Disciplinary Appeal.
17
Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 310 (5th Cir. 1997), citing, Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1166
(5th Cir.1995) cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1084, 116 S.Ct. 800, 133 L.Ed.2d 747 (1996).
18
390 F. App'x 323, 325 (5th Cir. 2010).
15

officers] retaliated against him for exercising that right by placing him [in solitary
confinement] on the same day he submitted the grievance”.19
III.

CONCLUSION
The Court finds that ARP 2012-3105 served the primary purposes of the

grievance process, namely, to alert prison officials to a claim of retaliation.20 The record
substantiates that Defendants Poret, Cruze, and Richardson were, in fact, alerted to the
Plaintiff’s grievance of retaliation, as evidenced by the fact that each of them responded
to ARP 2012-3105 in writing denying retaliation.21 Apparently, the Defendants were of
the impression that Monroe was complaining of retaliation for refusing to act as a tier
walker, which standing alone would not constitute a predicate constitutional violation to
support a retaliation claim. However a fair reading of Plaintiff’s ARP 2012-3105 reveals
that Monroe complained that he was being retaliated against for filing grievances.
Accordingly, the Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment for Failure to
Exhaust Administrative Remedies22 is DENIED; the Plaintiff’s Cross Motion for
Summary Judgment23 is GRANTED; and this matter is referred back to the Magistrate
Judge for further proceedings as may be necessary.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on December 3, 2014.

S

JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
19

Id. (internal citations omitted).
Johnson v Johnson, 385 F.3d 503, 522 (5th Cir. 2004) holding that the purpose of exhaustion
requirement is to give prison officials a fair opportunity to address the problem that later became the basis
of the action.
21
Rec. Doc. 5-2, pp. 16-28.
22
Rec. Doc. 28.
23
Rec. Doc. 31.
20