Gary Alan Montgomery v. Susan Howe, Mary Jo Labarge, Julia Gregg, and Richard Schumpert

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee dismisses Gary Alan Montgomery’s pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action concerning restrictions on prisoner use of library equipment at the Morgan County Correctional Complex. The court grants in forma pauperis status, denies class certification, appointment of counsel, and injunctive relief, and dismisses the complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim. The court concludes that the allegations do not plausibly establish denial of access to the courts, retaliation, equal protection violations, or viable official-capacity claims.

Holdings

1. A prisoner asserting denial of access to courts must plausibly allege that the challenged restriction or inadequate legal resources prejudiced a meritorious legal action. Montgomery did not do so.
2. A § 1983 retaliation claim requires plausible allegations of protected conduct, adverse action that would deter a person of ordinary firmness, and a causal connection between the protected conduct and adverse action. Montgomery's conclusory allegations did not establish causation.
3. An equal protection claim requires a plausible allegation that the plaintiff was treated differently from similarly situated persons and that the disparate treatment burdens a fundamental right, targets a suspect class, or lacks a rational basis. Montgomery did not plausibly allege that he and the comparison prisoner were similarly situated.
4. Official-capacity claims against the defendants were claims against TDOC, which is not a person subject to suit under § 1983. Although Ex parte Young permits prospective claims against state officials for ongoing violations, Montgomery did not plausibly allege an ongoing constitutional violation.
5. A prisoner's request for injunctive relief against prison officials becomes moot when the prisoner is transferred from the facility where the alleged violation occurred.
6. Class certification was properly denied because the complaint failed to state a viable § 1983 claim, and appointment of counsel was unwarranted absent exceptional circumstances.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged that restrictions on library equipment and the lack of free supplies caused prejudice to a meritorious legal action sufficient to state an access-to-courts claim under § 1983.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged a § 1983 retaliation claim based on stricter enforcement of library-equipment rules after Montgomery raised issues in grievances.
3. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged an equal protection violation based on different treatment of Montgomery and a prisoner working on a prison publication.
4. Whether official-capacity claims against TDOC employees were cognizable under § 1983 or under the Ex parte Young exception.
5. Whether Montgomery's transfer from TDOC custody mooted his request for injunctive relief.
6. Whether class certification and appointment of counsel were warranted.

Disposition

dismissed