Laratta v. Foster
708 F. App'x 948
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- In Feb 2011, inmate Giovanni Laratta filed a grievance alleging sexual harassment by a female corrections officer and received a negative "chron." An internal investigation led to charges that he filed a false report; a prison hearing officer found him guilty and imposed sanctions. A state court later ordered a new hearing and Laratta was exonerated.
- Laratta sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming First Amendment retaliation for filing the grievance. Defendants at trial were Associate Warden Sean Foster, Investigator Tino Herrera, and CO Lynn Travis.
- At trial Laratta participated remotely by videoconference and phone with counsel. The jury was instructed on a three-part retaliation test (protected activity; personal participation; substantial motivation) and returned a defense verdict.
- The district court instructed the jury that the substantial-motivation element required inquiry into defendants’ intent using six discretionary factors, and barred jurors from considering events occurring after the charging decision (e.g., Laratta’s later exoneration).
- Laratta moved for a new trial and later appealed; the Tenth Circuit held his appeal timely despite a local conferral-statement issue and affirmed the district court on all challenged rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper instruction for "substantial motivation" element in retaliation claim | Laratta: instruction imposed an improper, heightened state-of-mind standard rather than simple but-for causation | Defendants: jurors may consider defendants’ intent; state of mind is relevant to why adverse action was taken | Court: Affirmed; state of mind is relevant and the six-factor instruction fairly guided the jury |
| Admissibility of evidence/events occurring after the charge (e.g., later exoneration) | Laratta: post-charge events (overturning charge) were relevant to show lack of retaliatory motive | Defendants: post-charge events do not bear on defendants’ motivation at charging time; relevance is limited | Court: Affirmed exclusion; events after the charging decision were not probative of initial motive and Laratta had abandoned proffered evidence |
| Personal participation requirement for liability | Laratta: instruction was too narrow; liability can attach to those who set in motion events foreseeably leading to charges (e.g., Herrera) | Defendants: instruction limited to those who personally participated in charging/prosecuting; conviction phase irrelevant here | Court: Affirmed; no reversible error as the objection at trial focused on conviction aspect and was properly resolved |
| Remote attendance by prisoner-plaintiff | Laratta: remote participation impeded communication with counsel and possibly juror perception; he should have attended in person | Defendants: security, cost, and safety justify remote participation; video/telecom allowed meaningful participation | Court: Affirmed; district court properly balanced prisoner interest and security/cost concerns and did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Peterson v. Shanks, 149 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir.) (prison officials may not retaliate against inmates for exercising constitutional rights)
- Williams v. Meese, 926 F.2d 994 (10th Cir.) (filing administrative grievances is protected activity)
- Shero v. City of Grove, 510 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir.) (three-part retaliation test: protected activity; injury causing chilling effect; substantial motivation)
- Worrell v. Henry, 219 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir.) (retaliation analysis probes defendants’ motivation)
- Little, United States v., 829 F.3d 1177 (10th Cir.) (standard of review for jury instructions: de novo; reversal only if jury not fairly guided)
- Allender v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 439 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir.) (Rule 59 motion defects may render motion a nullity when it lacks characteristics of a motion)
- Feldman v. Allstate Ins. Co., 322 F.3d 660 (9th Cir.) (local conferral rules do not toll appellate deadlines; conferral statement not required for tolling)
- McCue v. Kan. Dep’t of Human Res., 165 F.3d 784 (10th Cir.) (district court’s evidentiary scope decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Perotti v. Quinones, 790 F.3d 712 (7th Cir.) (balancing test for prisoner’s physical presence at trial against government interests)
- Ralston v. Smith & Nephew Richards, Inc., 275 F.3d 965 (10th Cir.) (abuse of discretion standard: decision is not arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly unreasonable)