Horn v. Jones, 3:21-cv-05244

Plaintiff John Horn, a Washington state prisoner at Stafford Creek Correctional Center, sued Correctional Unit Supervisor Gregory Jones under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment retaliation based on cell transfers.
On Feb 8, 2019 Officer Sansom reported Horn and his cellmate engaged in "physical contact," triggering a PREA-related incident report; Jones directed Horn be moved to a B-Pod cell.
Horn filed a grievance about his transfer on Feb 10, 2019; Jones was interviewed about the grievance on April 9, 2019 and the grievance coordinator found Jones had discretion over cell moves.
Separately, SCCC expected a new cohort for the Freedom Tails dog program in March/April 2019; Jones says 15–20 inmates (including Horn) were moved by March 8, 2019 to accommodate the program.
Jones claims he did not learn of Horn’s grievance until April; Horn relies largely on timing to allege retaliatory motive. Both parties moved for summary judgment; the R&R recommends denying Horn’s motion, granting Jones’s motion, dismissing with prejudice, and awarding qualified immunity to Jones.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
First Amendment retaliation (cell transfer)	Horn: transfer was retaliation for filing a grievance and kiosk messages	Jones: transfer was for PREA/security reasons and to rehouse inmates for the dog program; he moved Horn before learning of the grievance	Court: Horn failed to show retaliation as motivating factor; summary judgment for Jones (claim dismissed)
Sufficiency of timing evidence to prove motive	Horn: close temporal proximity shows retaliatory motive	Jones: timing alone is insufficient; he learned of the grievance later and produced non-retaliatory reasons	Court: timing alone is inadequate; Horn produced no other evidence of retaliatory motive
Qualified immunity for damages	Horn: seeks damages for constitutional violation	Jones: entitled to qualified immunity because no constitutional violation was shown	Court: Jones entitled to qualified immunity; first prong (constitutional violation) not satisfied

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard and party burdens)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (genuine dispute and materiality standards at summary judgment)
Escondido v. Emmons, 139 S. Ct. 500 (qualified immunity two-part test requires showing a constitutional violation and clearly established law)
Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650 (viewing evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party on qualified immunity review)
Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108 (prisoner’s right to file grievances and claim of retaliation)
Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802 (timing alone insufficient to prove retaliation)
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (no respondeat superior liability under § 1983)
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (deference to correctional officials and legitimate penological interests)
Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527 (legitimate penological goals can defeat retaliation claims)