Greene v. Doruff
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20597
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Greene, a state prison inmate, worked as a library clerk; Doruff ordered Greene fired for allegedly copying and stealing judicial materials.
- Greene filed a prison grievance against Doruff challenging the disciplinary action as unsupported by rules.
- Doruff filed a conduct report after Greene filed the grievance; the timing suggests retaliation.
- A library receipt showed Greene properly checked out the Anders opinion, leading to dismissal of theft charges but sustaining the copying charge.
- A disciplinary hearing imposed 14 days in solitary confinement and destroyed the copies as contraband; Wisconsin court later ordered a new hearing, but the order was expunged without a new process.
- Greene sued in district court; the court granted summary judgment for Doruff and other officials, ruling no but-for causation established; the case was remanded for issues related to causation under Mt. Healthy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the disciplinary action violated Greene’s First Amendment rights | Greene: action was retaliation for filing a grievance. | Defendants: action justified by policy/discipline for copying materials. | Causation triable; remand requested on Mt. Healthy analysis. |
| Whether Mt. Healthy governs causation in First Amendment torts here | Spiegla-style demanding motivating-factor sufficiency. | Mt. Healthy governs; but-for standard may apply. | Mt. Healthy standard controls; but-for causation required unless exception shown. |
| Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment on three defendants | Greene argues animus and timing show causation. | Actions not tied to grievance filing; no evidence of direct causal link. | Summary judgment proper for three; reversed as to Doruff. |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence of animus or preexisting hostility by Doruff | Animus existed before grievance, influencing conduct report. | Hostility alone not sufficient without causal link to disciplinary action. | Triable issue on causation; remand for further proceedings. |
| Whether the plaintiff’s injury would have occurred absent protected conduct | Protected conduct was a motivating factor. | Discipline could have occurred regardless; not but-for caused by protected conduct. | Jury should assess but-for causation under Mt. Healthy on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (U.S. 1977) (establishes Mt. Healthy causation framework (motivating factor; burdens shift))
- Fairley v. Andrews, 578 F.3d 518 (7th Cir. 2009) (discusses but-for causation in First Amendment torts)
- Spiegla v. Hull, 371 F.3d 928 (7th Cir. 2004) (distinguishes motivating factor from necessary condition in causation)
- Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2009) (holds Mt. Healthy inapplicable to certain statutes; impacts causation analysis outside First Amendment)
- Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (U.S. 2000) (unconstitutional disparate treatment; context for evaluating animus/no but-for causation)