Moton v. Cowart
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2080
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Moton, an inmate, sued Cowart and others under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for retaliation related to disciplinary reports issued after his grievances.
- Cowart discussed Moton’s September and October 2004 grievances and warned of discipline for disrespect.
- Disciplinary reports charged Moton with disrespect and threats based on his October 30, 2004 grievance and remarks.
- FDOC disciplinary hearing (Sheetz and Prieto) found Moton guilty, imposing confinement and loss of gain time; rehearing later found no guilt on some charges.
- District court granted summary judgment to Cowart on causation and on compensatory damages; Moton appealed.
- Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding genuine issues of material fact on causation; remanded for proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Causation between grievance and discipline | Moton argues retaliation existed; district court erred in crediting Cowart | Cowart contends discipline followed rule violations (disrespect); no causal link | Causation genuine issue; reversal and remand |
| Moton's statements about contacting his attorney | Statements not punishable threats; protected speech | Statements could be construed as threats under policy | Disputed facts; statements not categorically punishable; remand warranted |
| Damages on summary judgment | Damages issue not resolved; still live | Damages addressed by district court | District court erred by sua sponte granting damages summary judgment; remand for damages proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Bennett v. Hendrix, 423 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2005) (retaliation requires protected speech, adverse action, and causation)
- Smith v. Mosley, 532 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2008) (subjective motivation governs causation; shifting burden on defendant)
- Al-Amin v. Smith, 511 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2008) (prisoner rights protections; communications with attorney)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (inmate rights limited but protected; procedural safeguards are important)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting standard)
- Capone v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 592 F.3d 1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (summary judgment and evidentiary standard)
- Lee v. City of New York / WSB-TV v. Lee, 842 F.2d 1266 (11th Cir. 1988) (reaffirmation of standard for reviewing summary judgment; evidence viewed in light favorable to nonmovant)