Summary
A United States Magistrate Judge recommends granting Defendant Michael Taylor’s motion for summary judgment in Michael Gresham’s prisoner civil-rights action. The recommendation concludes that Gresham failed to present evidence supporting his Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect and First Amendment retaliation claims. It also recommends denying Gresham’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction concerning alleged forced medication because the requested relief was unrelated to the claims in the complaint and lacked the required procedural and evidentiary showing.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Defendant Taylor was entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect and deliberate-indifference claim.
- Whether Plaintiff produced evidence creating a genuine dispute of material fact on his First Amendment retaliation claim.
- Whether Plaintiff was entitled to a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction concerning alleged forced medication.
- Whether the court needed to address Defendant Taylor's qualified-immunity defense to the Eighth Amendment claim.
Holdings
- Defendant Taylor was entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiff failed to present evidence establishing the required factual basis for his Eighth Amendment claim, including evidence that he suffered physical harm or was exposed to a substantial risk of serious harm attributable to Taylor's alleged conduct.
- Defendant Taylor was entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's retaliation claim because Plaintiff failed to produce significant probative evidence creating a genuine dispute concerning adverse action or causation, and the grievance identified by Plaintiff was not protected conduct because it was frivolous as to Taylor.
- Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction was properly denied because he supplied neither the notice-related certification nor sworn evidence clearly showing irreparable harm, and he failed to establish a relationship between the requested relief and the claims pleaded in the complaint.
Key quotations
“Under the subjective prong, an official must “know[ ] of and disregard[ ] an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.”” (at 5)
“When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” (at 9)
“A party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party’s motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.” (at 12)
Factual background
Plaintiff, an MDOC prisoner, alleged that Defendant Taylor searched his cell, destroyed or took his books and legal documents, labeled him a snitch, and gave his property to another inmate as payment for an assault. Plaintiff alleged that he was later stabbed in the foot and exposed to feces and urine by another prisoner. Taylor submitted an affidavit, security video, medical records, and deposition testimony disputing the alleged conduct and the claimed injury. Plaintiff also sought emergency injunctive relief concerning forced medication, although medication was not part of the pleaded claims against Taylor.
Procedural history
Plaintiff initially sued six employees of the Oaks Correctional Facility, but the Court dismissed all claims except a First Amendment retaliation claim and an Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Taylor. Taylor moved for summary judgment, and Plaintiff moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction concerning alleged forced medication. The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment, denying injunctive relief, terminating the case, and finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.