United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, Jr., District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on defendants Paula Huffman Phillips, Michael McGill, John Roach, Jody Arnold, and Darlene Wansing's motion for summary judgment (#71) in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case brought by a prisoner within the Missouri Department of Corrections ("MDOC"). This Court previously granted summary judgment to defendants on several of plaintiff's claims. Remaining for disposition in this case is plaintiff's claim that defendants removed and damaged his Koss brand headphones in violation of plaintiff's First Amendment rights.
I. Factual background
As this Court stated in its previous summary judgment memorandum and order:
On January 3, 2007, an SECC search and movement team randomly searched every cell in plaintiff's housing unit as a result of an incident on the recreation yard two days earlier. The search was conducted for the safety and security of the institution due to an incident two days earlier. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Phillips instructed a member of the search team to take his Koss headphones. Defendants state that the headphones had been altered, which justified their removal, but the headphones were returned to plaintiff on January 30.
(#70 at 2.) Plaintiff signed a form acknowledging that the "Koss Headphones Altered" had been returned to him, but there was apparently no Conduct Violation issued for his possession of the altered headphones. Upon return to his cell,
Plaintiff discovered that they were no longer working properly, so he tried to have them sent back to the manufacturer for repair. He alleges that defendant Phillips instructed others not to send out his headphones for repair, and he states that he has not seen the headphones since he turned the headphones and $5 (plus postage) over to the property room for shipment. Defendants counter that plaintiff never informed the institution that he wanted the headphones sent out.
(Id. ) The headphones apparently worked properly on one side but did not transmit sound on the other side. Plaintiff sent an Informal Resolution Request ("IRR") about the broken headphones, and the response to it stated that "your headphones are ready to be sent out for repair. The property room has the approved green check, stamps and the headphones that will be sent out with your acceptance of this response." The final grievance appeal response, on July 2, 2007, stated that plaintiff had "30 days from the time you receive this response to send the headphones out for repair or have them disposed of." Defendants now submit evidence that the headphones are no longer in the property room at the prison and they state that they are thus not able to return the headphones to him. Plaintiff claims that defendants engaged in this conduct in retaliation for plaintiff's then-pending lawsuit against defendant Phillips. Plaintiff seeks return or replacement of the headphones.
II. Legal Standard
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), a district court may grant a motion for summary judgment if all of the information before the court demonstrates that "there is no genuine issue as to material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 368 U.S. 464, 467 (1962). The burden is on the moving party. City of Mt. Pleasant, Iowa v. Assoc. Elec. Co-op., Inc., 838 F.2d 268, 273 (8th Cir. 1988). After the moving party discharges this burden, the nonmoving party must do more than show that there is some doubt as to the facts. Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Instead, the nonmoving party bears the burden of setting forth specific facts showing that there is sufficient evidence in its favor to allow a jury to return a verdict for it. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986).
In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court must review the facts in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion and give that party the benefit of any inferences that logically can be drawn from those facts. Buller v. Buechler, 706 F.2d 844, 846 (8th Cir. 1983). The court is required to resolve all conflicts of evidence in favor of the nonmoving party. Robert Johnson Grain Co. v. Chem. Interchange Co., 541 F.2d 207, 210 (8th Cir. 1976).
Plaintiff claims the headphones were removed and damaged by defendants (or at their direction, specifically defendant Phillips) in retaliation for having filed a lawsuit against Phillips. As this Court observed in its last two memorandums and orders:
To establish a retaliation claim a plaintiff must show: "(1) the prisoner exercised a constitutionally protected right; (2) prison officials disciplined the prisoner; and (3) exercising the right was the motivation for the discipline." Meuir v. Greene County Jail Employees, 487 F.3d 1115, 1119 (8th Cir. 2007). "Merely alleging that an act was retaliatory is insufficient." Id. To avoid summary judgment, the plaintiff must submit affirmative evidence of a retaliatory motive. Lewis v. Jacks, 486 F.3d 1025, 1029 (8th Cir. 2007). Additionally, the discipline must have been that which would "chill a person of ordinary firmness from engaging in that activity." Id. at 1028. A plaintiff also fails to establish a retaliation claim, "if the alleged retaliatory conduct violations were issued for the actual violation of a prison rule. Thus, a defendant may successfully defend a retaliatory discipline claim by showing some evidence' the inmate actually committed a rule violation." Bandy-Bey v. Crist, 578 F.3d 763, 766 (8th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations omitted); see also ...