Martin v. Posey, 2:15-cv-02294

Plaintiff Ronald Martin, an Ohio state prisoner at Chillicothe Correctional Institution, reported that officer Cody Posey asked him to open a coworker’s locker; Martin told supervisor Timothy Blakeman and alleged retaliation followed.
OPI Industrial Manager Woody Coey filed a conduct report accusing Martin of making false statements to support another inmate’s story; Martin was placed in isolation and later found guilty of lying by Sergeant Parnell.
As a result of the disciplinary finding, Martin lost his job in the OPI paint shop; he alleges the conduct report and job loss were retaliatory and part of a conspiracy by Posey, Coey, and Brent Cruse to protect Posey.
Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing failure to exhaust administrative remedies (especially as to Cruse), that Martin’s statements were not protected because they were lies, that Sergeant Parnell’s independent finding defeats causation, and asserting qualified immunity.
The Magistrate Judge concluded Martin failed to exhaust claims against Cruse, and that some evidence supported the disciplinary finding that Martin lied — precluding protected-conduct status and defeating the retaliation and related conspiracy claims; summary judgment recommended for defendants.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exhaustion as to Cruse	Martin’s grievance efforts identify the incident generally and exhausted remedies	Grievances did not name or describe Cruse; thus Martin failed to exhaust against Cruse	Martin did not exhaust administrative remedies as to Cruse; claims against Cruse dismissed without prejudice
Whether Martin engaged in protected conduct	Martin says he truthfully reported Posey’s misconduct to Blakeman during an investigation	Defendants argue Martin lied; lying is not protected and disciplinary finding bars the claim	Some evidence supported the misconduct finding; Martin precluded from proving protected conduct; retaliation fails at element one
Adverse action / fairness of hearing	Martin contends the conduct report was false and the hearing was a sham directed by Coey	Defendants point to Parnell’s independent investigation and credibility findings as lawful adjudication	Hearsay assertions by Martin insufficient to show an unfair hearing; adverse-action theory based on false report fails
Conspiracy to retaliate	Martin alleges Coey, Posey, and Cruse conspired to fabricate the report and remove him from OPI	Defendants argue conspiracy fails because no underlying retaliation claim and no evidence of agreement	Because retaliation claim fails, conspiracy claim fails; summary judgment recommended

Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378 (6th Cir. 1999) (elements required to prove prisoner retaliation claim)
Mattox v. Edelman, 851 F.3d 583 (6th Cir. 2017) (exhaustion standard and purpose of PLRA grievance process)
Jackson v. Madery, [citation="158 F. App'x 656"] (6th Cir. 2005) (finding of guilt on prison rule can defeat retaliation claim)
Cornell v. Woods, 69 F.3d 1383 (8th Cir. 1995) (truthful cooperation in misconduct investigations is protected conduct)
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2006) (PLRA exhaustion requires compliance with prison grievance procedures)