Nate Lindell v. Peter Moreno, Jennifer Fandel, Michael Glass, Nathan Kennedy, and Anthony Churchill

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment to the corrections and University of Wisconsin defendants in Nate Lindell’s First Amendment retaliation action. The court held that defendants had legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for removing Lindell from educational programming, restricting his contact with staff, and maintaining his exclusion from portions of the education building, and that Lindell lacked sufficient evidence of pretext or causation. The court also denied or resolved the remaining motions, directed entry of judgment, and closed the case.

Holdings

1. Summary judgment was proper because Lindell failed to produce evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that defendants removed him from the program because he complained about harassment. Defendants presented legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons, including their perception that Lindell's conduct and messages created safety or classroom-management concerns, and Lindell did not show those reasons were pretextual or dishonest.
2. Summary judgment was proper because defendants had a legitimate reason to limit Lindell's contact with Fandel, and the record contained no evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the restrictions were imposed in retaliation for Lindell's complaints.
3. Even assuming defendants made the alleged statements, the statements did not support a retaliation claim because Lindell did not explain how they would deter a person of ordinary firmness from making future complaints, and the statements did not cause the restrictions imposed on him.
4. Summary judgment was proper because Lindell offered no evidence that Kennedy urged MATC officials to disregard Lindell's complaints or that MATC officials took adverse action against him because of Kennedy's statements.
5. Lindell was not entitled to injunctive relief because the court granted summary judgment on all of his underlying retaliation claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defendants' removal of Lindell from the Odyssey Beyond Bars program and editorial group was unlawful First Amendment retaliation.
2. Whether defendants' restrictions on Lindell's communications with educational staff and access to the education building were unlawful First Amendment retaliation.
3. Whether alleged statements that Fandel wanted a restraining order supported a First Amendment retaliation claim.
4. Whether Kennedy's alleged communications with Madison Area Technical College staff about Lindell's grievances and threat to sue supported a First Amendment retaliation claim.
5. Whether Lindell was entitled to injunctive relief concerning his participation in educational programming.

Disposition

dismissed