Miller v. Cyborski

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana denied both parties' cross-motions for summary judgment in Arthula Miller's First Amendment retaliation action against Sgt. D. Cyborski. The court held that disputed evidence, including Miller's verified allegations that Cyborski questioned him about his lawsuit and stated that litigants could not hold hallway jobs, created a genuine issue of material fact regarding retaliatory motive and knowledge.

Holdings

1. A prisoner may avoid summary judgment on a First Amendment retaliation claim by presenting evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that protected activity was a motivating factor in the adverse action; the plaintiff need not prove that retaliation was the sole or primary factor.
2. A verified complaint may be considered affidavit material at summary judgment when it is based on personal knowledge, sets out facts admissible in evidence, shows the declarant is competent to testify, and satisfies the requirements for verification under penalty of perjury.
3. Neither party was entitled to summary judgment because the record contained a genuine dispute of material fact concerning whether Cyborski knew of Miller's protected lawsuit and whether retaliation motivated the job termination.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Cyborski was entitled to summary judgment on Miller's First Amendment retaliation claim.
2. Whether Miller was entitled to summary judgment on the same retaliation claim.
3. Whether Miller's verified complaint could be considered affidavit material under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.

Disposition

other