217 F. Supp. 3d 367
D. Mass.2016Background
- Mattei, an MCI-Norfolk inmate, worked in the prison metal shop supervised by Dunbar; Mattei filed multiple grievances after being passed over for promotion and after being denied good-time credit.
- Mattei alleges Dunbar retaliated by (1) denying good-time credit for April 2012, (2) firing him from the metal shop after discovering he possessed a back brace taken from another shop, and (3) soliciting another inmate to assault Mattei.
- Institution records show an unsatisfactory monthly rating for April 2012 (denying good-time credit) and a rule forbidding inmates from taking property from others without permission; Mattei produced a handwritten informal grievance dated April 19, 2012.
- An investigation into an inmate’s report that Dunbar offered an inmate donuts to beat Mattei was ultimately found unsubstantiated, but an affidavit by that inmate post-dated the alleged event and was provided to Mattei in May 2013.
- Procedural posture: following a partial dismissal, only three First Amendment retaliation claims against Dunbar remained; Dunbar moved for summary judgment, which the court granted in part and denied in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of April 2012 good-time credit was unlawful retaliation | Mattei says he filed an informal grievance in April and was denied good time in retaliation | Dunbar says no record of grievance; denial was based on an unsatisfactory performance rating | Denial of summary judgment — factual disputes (grievance filing, inconsistent ratings) permit claim to proceed |
| Whether termination from metal shop was unlawful retaliation | Mattei says he was fired after filing grievances | Dunbar says Mattei violated rules by taking a back brace from another shop, a legitimate ground for firing | Summary judgment for Dunbar — legitimate, non-retaliatory basis for termination established |
| Whether soliciting another inmate to harm Mattei was unlawful retaliation | Mattei relies on White’s affidavit/testimony that Dunbar asked him to "take care" of Mattei shortly after grievances | Dunbar disputes the encounter and timing; investigation found White’s claim unsubstantiated | Denial of summary judgment — credibility/timing disputes create triable issue |
| Whether Dunbar is entitled to qualified immunity | Mattei argues First Amendment retaliation law (including for threats and loss of good time) was clearly established | Dunbar contends his actions did not violate clearly established law | Denial as to the surviving claims — retaliation law was clearly established for these facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (retaliation for protected speech violates the First Amendment)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (prisoners retain some constitutional protections)
- Hannon v. Beard, 645 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2011) (prisoner retaliation prima facie elements)
- Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (habeas is proper remedy for restoring good-time credits)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity two-step framework)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard)
- Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1 (threats of future harm can support chill/retaliation claim)
- Memphis Community School District v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299 (nominal damages vindicate constitutional rights)
- Brown v. Crowley, 312 F.3d 782 (6th Cir.) (loss of good-time credit can be materially adverse in retaliation claim)