Joseph Watson v. Gerald Rozum
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15429
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Inmate Joseph Watson claimed prison officials retaliated against him under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after his radio was confiscated during a cell search and he sought a grievance; he was later issued a misconduct charge.
- On Dec. 6, 2011 Officer Kline confiscated Watson’s radio; Kline recorded the antenna as already broken; Watson insisted it was not broken and asked for an incident report and a grievance form.
- Captain Simosko refused to give Watson a grievance form; later Officer Coutts told Watson he would be given a misconduct for giving officers a “hard time” and for not being “polite.”
- Coutts prepared a Class I misconduct (issued ~6 hours after seizure and after Watson said he would file a grievance); Hearing Officer Dupont later reduced it to Class II and the radio was confiscated as the sanction.
- District Court dismissed most claims with prejudice and granted summary judgment to remaining defendants on retaliation claims; this appeal addresses whether summary judgment was appropriate as to Coutts (and others).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Watson engaged in constitutionally protected activity | Requesting and expressing intent to file a grievance is protected First Amendment activity | Defendants did not dispute protection for purposes of appeal but argued causation and same-decision defense | Court: Requesting/intent to file a grievance qualifies as protected conduct |
| Whether issuance of misconduct was an adverse action | Misconduct (Class I reduced to II and radio loss) imposed non-de minimis harms deterring protected speech | Defendants argued discipline was legitimate penological action | Court: Misconduct and loss of radio constitute an adverse action more than de minimis |
| Whether protected conduct was a substantial/motivating factor (causation) | Close timing plus Coutts’ statements that Watson gave officers a “hard time” create a causal inference | Defendants argued timing not unusually suggestive and that misconduct would have been issued regardless (same-decision defense) | Court: Genuine dispute of material fact exists as to Coutts (causation satisfied for prima facie case); causation not shown against Dupont, Simosko, Snyder |
| Whether same-decision defense bars liability | Watson: evidence (timing, comparable inmate practice, Coutts’ remarks) can show discipline was retaliatory / pretextual | Defendants: even if retaliatory motive existed, they would have disciplined Watson for contraband regardless (same-decision) | Court: Same-decision defense fails on summary judgment as to Coutts (issues of fact); summary judgment affirmed for the other defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Rauser v. Horn, 241 F.3d 330 (3d Cir. 2001) (framework for prisoner retaliation claims and burden-shifting same-decision defense)
- Carter v. McGrady, 292 F.3d 152 (3d Cir. 2002) (discussing quantum of evidence of misconduct relevant to same-decision analysis)
- Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523 (3d Cir. 2003) (filing grievances is First Amendment–protected conduct)
- Hill v. City of Scranton, 411 F.3d 118 (3d Cir. 2005) (disciplinary enforcement can be retaliatory even when violation occurred)
- Mount Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977) (but-for causation and burden-shifting framework informing same-decision defense)
- Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985) ("some evidence" standard for due process review of prison disciplinary findings)