Roden v. Floyd et al

Filing 115

ORDER Denying 106 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (LVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JONATHAN RODEN,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 16-11208
District Judge Victoria A. Roberts
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

v.
MICHELLE FLOYD, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[ECF No. 106]
Before the Court is Jonathan Roden’s (“Roden”) motion for summary
judgment. Roden brings a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 retaliation claim under the First
and Fourteenth Amendments and seeks compensatory damages. He claims
Defendants, employees of the Michigan Department of Corrections at G.
Robert Cotton Correctional Facility, transferred him to a more restrictive
correctional facility and removed him from Jackson College classes because
of grievances he filed against them.
Because there are genuine issues of material fact in dispute, the Court
DENIES Roden’s motion for summary judgment.

1

I.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
During the relevant time period, Roden was imprisoned at the G.

Robert Cotton Correctional Facility (“JCF”). At JCF, inmates can attend
Jackson College and earn credits towards an associate degree as part of the
“Pathways from Prison to Post-Secondary Education Initiative.”
Roden enrolled and paid for classes in January 2015. He intended to
complete the program and graduate in the summer of 2016. Roden became
a GED tutor in May 2015 and later became an academic tutor while attending
classes at night.
Roden filed numerous grievances during this time. Specifically, Roden
filed a grievance in June 2015 against Defendant Deputy Warden Floyd and
JCF correctional officer Beverly Haynes-Love – who is no longer a party to
this action – after Haynes-Love prevented him from attending one of his
classes. Roden alleges that in retaliation Defendant Floyd threatened to
transfer him for writing the grievance.
In July 2015, Roden was named to the Dean’s List, but could not attend
the awards ceremony. Roden says juice and cookies were served at the
ceremony. After the ceremony, he sent a handwritten note to Floyd that
stated: “Thank you for your encouragement and support! But you all could

2

have saved me some cookies. Y’all ate all the cookies.” [ECF No. 59,
PageID.1052] (emphasis in original).
Defendant Floyd considered this handwritten note inappropriate and
requested that Roden be transferred to another facility and terminated from
his tutor jobs. Defendant Brewer – a new party to this action – agreed that
Roden’s behavior presented a safety concern and that he could not remain
at JCF. Roden claims Defendant Floyd emailed JCF’s transfer coordinator
to facilitate his transfer.
Roden says he was terminated without explanation from his work detail
on July 31, 2015. He filed a grievance for “improper termination” on August
11, 2015. Roden filed another grievance in August 2015, alleging a
correctional officer improperly confiscated his schoolwork. He says during a
hearing about a misconduct ticket, he asked Defendant Cady to recuse
himself because of Roden’s past grievances against him. Roden says
Defendant Cady refused and responded, “As to your grievance[,] who cares,
you won’t be here long enough to write another grievance, request denied.”
[ECF No. 48, PageID.843].
Roden claims that on August 13, 2015, the grievance coordinator
contacted Defendant Floyd to inform her that Roden filed another grievance
that initiated another series of emails in which Floyd reiterated her desire to
3

transfer Roden. His transfer was approved that same day. According to
Roden, on August 24, 2015, Defendant Richard Cady, the Resident Unit
Manager instructed that the security classification be completed for Roden’s
transfer. Roden was told he was being transferred on August 26, 2015 and
was ultimately transferred on August 27, 2015. The Jackson College
program director testified that Roden was dropped from the program after he
was transferred.
On August 28, 2015, Roden submitted a grievance, alleging he was
transferred in retaliation for filing grievances. He claims that, because he filed
these grievances, Defendants transferred him from JCF and removed him
from the Jackson College program, which in turn caused him to lose paid
tuition and deprived him of the opportunity to earn his degree.
II.

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Roden filed his complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis

on April 4, 2016 in the Western District of Michigan. The Court granted his
application and transferred the case to this district. On September 14, 2016,
Defendants filed their first motion for summary judgment. Roden opposed
the motion, invoked Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d), and provided an affidavit saying
he needed discovery in order to respond to Defendants’ motion. The
Magistrate Judge granted Roden’s motion to compel in part, and ordered
4

Defendants provide certain documents to Roden and supplement a
response to an interrogatory. Also, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report
and Recommendation to deny Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
without prejudice, allowing Defendants to refile after they complied with the
Court’s discovery order. The Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation.
On July 18, 2017, Defendants filed their second motion for summary
judgement. There, Defendants alleged, among other things, that Roden
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The Magistrate Judge entered
a Report and Recommendation granting in part and denying in part
Defendants second motion for summary judgment. The Court adopted the
Report and Recommendation on March 15, 2018.
The Court has already made the following relevant findings:
1. Roden exhausted his administrative remedies as to his retaliation
claims against Defendants through Grievance JCF-2015-09-230828C. As such, the Court found Roden has established the first
element of his claim of retaliation under the First Amendment – that
he was engaged in protected conduct. [ECF No. 52, PageID.946].
2. There is a genuine issue of fact as to whether Roden suffered an
adverse action. A reasonable trier of fact could conclude that
5

Defendants’ transfer of Plaintiff from JCF and his removal from the
Jackson College program were in retaliation for filing grievances,
caused “more than a de minimus injury,” and resulted in “more
restrictions and fewer privileges.” As such, the actions could deter
a prisoner of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in the
protected conduct. [ECF No. 52, PageID.953-954].
3. A trier of fact could conclude that Defendant Floyd’s request that
Roden be transferred “set in motion” the transfer, and the transfer
can be attributed to her, although she did not have the ultimate
authority to complete the transfer. [ECF No. 52, PageID.956].
4. There is a genuine issue of fact as to whether Defendants would
have taken the actions to have Roden transferred absent his
grievances. Specifically, there is an issue of fact as to whether
Roden’s handwritten note could be deemed inappropriate and
presented a security threat requiring an immediate transfer and
removal from participation in the Jackson College program.
5. There is a genuine issue of fact regarding whether Defendants
Floyd and Cady violated Roden’s First Amendment right against
retaliation and whether Defendants Floyd and Cady should enjoy
qualified immunity.
6

Roden filed an amended complaint on May 7, 2018, adding JCF
Warden Shawn Brewer as a defendant.
III.

LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is proper when “the movant shows that there is no

genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The central inquiry is “whether the
evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury
or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.”
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986).
The moving party has the initial burden to show “the absence of a
genuine issue of material fact.” Id. at 323. Once the movant meets this
burden, the non-moving party must demonstrate specific facts “showing
there is a genuine issue for trial.” Matsushita Electric Indus. Co. v. Zenith
Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (internal quotations and citations
omitted). To demonstrate a genuine issue for trial, the non-moving party must
present sufficient evidence upon which a jury could reasonably find for that
party; a “scintilla of evidence” is insufficient. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.
The Court must accept the non-movant’s evidence as true and draw all
“justifiable inferences” in the non-movant’s favor. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at
255.
7

IV.

ANALYSIS
To make a First Amendment retaliation claim, a plaintiff must establish

three elements: (1) the plaintiff engaged in protected conduct; (2) an adverse
action was taken against the plaintiff that would deter a person of ordinary
firmness from continuing to engage in that conduct; and (3) there is a causal
connection between the first two elements – that the adverse action was
motivated by the plaintiff’s engagement in protected conduct. Thaddeus-X v.
Blatter, 175 F.3d 378, 394 (6th Cir. 1999).
Once a plaintiff establishes these elements, the burden shifts to the
defendant “to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the
employment decision would have been the same absent the protected
conduct.” Eckerman v. Tenn. Dept. of Safety, 636 F.3d 202, 208 (6th Cir.
2010) (citing Sowards v. Loudon Cnty, 203 F.3d 426, 431 (6th Cir. 2000)).
Roden identifies two questions for trial that he says are not in dispute:
(1) whether his termination from two tutor jobs, removal from the Jackson
College program and transfer to another correctional facility were adverse
actions; and (2) whether Defendants’ claim that they transferred Roden
because the handwritten note he sent to Defendant Floyd was a security
threat is pretext for retaliation.

8

Defendants say the Court must deny Roden’s motion because he fails
to present undisputed facts which meet all of the elements of his retaliation
claims. The Court agrees.
1. Protected Conduct
The Sixth Circuit holds “[a]n inmate has an undisputed First
Amendment right to file [non-frivolous] grievances against prison officials on
his own behalf.” Herron v. Harrison, 203 F.3d 410, 415 (6th Cir. 2000).
Because the Court has already found Roden exhausted his
administrative remedies as to his retaliation claim through Grievance JCF15-09-2308-28C, it will not address Defendants’ argument that Roden’s
allegation that he filed grievances and therefore engaged in protected
conduct is “an unsupported, conclusory allegation.” [ECF No. 107,
PageID.1464].
The Court finds there is no genuine issue of fact as to whether Roden
engaged in protected conduct when he filed grievances against JCF
employees.
2. Adverse Action
An adverse action is an action that would “deter a person of ordinary
firmness from exercise of the right at stake.” Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d
378, 396 (6th Cir. 1999). Retaliation against a prisoner is “actionable if it is
9

capable of deterring a person of ordinary firmness from exercising his or her
right to access the courts.” Id. at 398.
Roden says the Court already found that there is a genuine issue of
fact as to whether he suffered an adverse action under the facts and
circumstances of this case. Specifically, the Court adopted the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation and rejected Defendants’ objections
to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that a jury could conclude that Roden’s
removal from the Jackson College program and the loss of his employment
were foreseeable negative consequences that inextricably followed from
Defendants’ transfer of him. [ECF No. 57, PageID.1042].
Defendants correctly assert that: (1) Roden fails to offer any additional
arguments to show there is no longer a genuine issue of material fact; and
(2) Defendant Shawn Brewer was not a party to this action when the Court
held there was a genuine issue of material fact, and Roden does not present
any argument specific to him.
Because Roden fails to assert new evidence to establish there is no
genuine issue of material fact, as to the second element, by a preponderance
of the evidence, he is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

10

3. Causal Connection
The third element requires Roden to establish a causal connection
between the protected conduct and adverse action. Thaddeus-X, 175 F.3d
at 399. This element addresses whether the Defendants’ subjective
motivation for taking the adverse action was, at least in part, to retaliate
against Roden for engaging in the protected conduct. Id.
The Court already found there is a genuine issue of fact as to
Defendants Floyd and Cady. The only new argument Roden makes is
specific to Defendant Shawn Brewer, who was added to this action after
Defendants’ second motion for summary judgment. Roden says the Court
should find a causal link between his transfer and Brewer’s actions because
of emails dated August 13, 2015 between Brewer, Defendant Floyd, and two
other JCF employees. Roden writes out, but does not attach as exhibits, the
alleged emails in his brief, and they show Defendant Brewer agreed that
Roden should not remain at JCF; he said “we are identifying some prisoners
who are buying there [sic] way down here only to act up and think they have
Teflon on we just need documentation that will stand grievance challenge.”
[ECF No. 106, PageID.1429].
Roden references additional emails sent to JCF’s transfer coordinator,
Bradley Haynie. He says those emails have not been provided but will be

11

available at trial. Because these emails are not in the record, the Court will
not consider their merits. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3).
Defendants say this argument fails because, prior to being named as
a Defendant, Brewer attested in his affidavit: “[i]n late July 2015, Roden sent
an unauthorized communication to then Deputy Warden Michelle Floyd,
which was brought to my attention. Due to the inappropriateness of the card,
Deputy Warden Floyd requested that Roden be transferred out of JCF. I
agreed with that request because Roden’s demonstrated behavior presented
a security and safety concern and he could not remain at JCF. [JCF Transfer
Coordinator] was responsible for arranging the proposed transfer and on
August 13, 2015, [JCF Employee] approved Roden’s transfer back to his
previous facility.” [ECF No. 44-11, Page ID. 730].
Defendants say Defendant Floyd’s request for Roden’s transfer
predates the August 15th email exchanges by “over two weeks.” However,
Defendant Brewer’s affidavit does not include any dates other than July 2015
when Roden sent the handwritten note, and August 13, 2015, when a JCF
employee approved Roden’s transfer – the same date Roden alleges Brewer
participated in an email exchange discussing his transfer.
The Court already found there is a question of fact as to whether: (1)
Roden’s handwritten note could be deemed inappropriate and to present a
12

security threat requiring an immediate transfer and removal from the Jackson
College program; and (2) that Defendant Floyd’s request to have Roden
transferred “set in motion” the transfer even though she did not have the
ultimate authority to transfer him. Similarly, because Brewer agreed that
Roden should be transferred, a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that
Brewer’s action also set in motion Roden’s transfer. The Court finds there is
a genuine issue of material fact as to whether there is a causal connection
between Brewer’s actions and Roden’s transfer.
V.

CONCLUSION
Roden fails to show there are no genuine issues of material fact. The

Court DENIES his motion for summary judgment.
IT IS ORDERED.

Date: February 10, 2020

s/ Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge

13