Faulk v. Patterson , 545 F. App'x 56 ( 2013 )

12-3406
Faulk v. Patterson
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER
FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A
DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held
at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New
York, on the 21st day of November, two thousand thirteen.
PRESENT:
ROBERT D. SACK,
PETER W. HALL,
DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
Alfonzo Faulk,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. 12-3406
Brian Fisher, Commissioner, Richard Roy, I.G.,
Gregory Kadien, Supt., Hessle, D.S.S.,
McNamara, D.S.P., Allen, CC, Samick, CC,
Cotton, CC, Kelleher, CC, Howard, PA, Kull,
Officer, Regan, PA, Dzierba, SCC, Gian,
Officer, Wiley, I.G. Agent, Mirtello, Sargent,
Janish, IGP Supervisor, LaGraves, IGP Supervisor,
Lukaszek, Officer, Turinsky, Officer, Zacagnino,
Defendants-Appellants,
David Patterson, Governor,
Defendant.
_____________________________________
FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: Alfonzo Faulk, pro se, Bronx, NY.
FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS: Victor Gerard Paladino, Assistant Solicitor General
(Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Denise
A. Hartman, Assistant Solicitor General, on the
brief), for Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General
of the State of New York, Albany, NY.
Appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of
New York (Telesca, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff-Appellant Alfonzo Faulk, pro se, appeals from the district court’s judgment
granting the Appellees’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing his action brought
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the
procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
We review orders granting summary judgment de novo. See Gonzalez v. City of
Schenectady, 728 F.3d 149, 154 (2d Cir. 2013). “Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law.” Id. In determining whether there are genuine disputes of material fact, this Court is
“‘required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the
party against whom summary judgment is sought.’” Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d
Cir. 2003) (quoting Stern v. Trs. of Columbia Univ. in City of New York, 131 F.3d 305, 312 (2d
Cir. 1997)). Summary judgment is appropriate “[w]here the record taken as a whole could not
lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.
Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
2
On appeal, Faulk primarily challenges the district court’s dismissal of his retaliation
claim, which alleged that, the day after he succeeded on an inmate grievance, several of the
Appellees retaliated against him by filing misbehavior reports. To prevail on such a claim, Faulk
must show “first, that he engaged in constitutionally protected conduct and, second, that the
conduct was a substantial or motivating factor for the adverse actions taken by prison officials.”
Bennett v. Goord, 343 F.3d 133, 137 (2d Cir. 2003). The Appellees concede that filing an
inmate grievance constitutes protected conduct, so the only issue is whether Faulk has produced
sufficient evidence to raise a question of material fact about whether his successful grievance
was a “substantial or motivating factor” in the disciplinary charges. See id. at 137-38. This he
has not done.
“[P]risoner retaliation claims are easily fabricated, and . . . pose a substantial risk of
unwarranted judicial intrusion into matters of general prison administration.” Id. at 137 (internal
quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, while we have held that temporal proximity between
protected conduct and an adverse action constitutes circumstantial evidence of retaliation, see id.
at 138, we have consistently required some further evidence of retaliatory animus before
permitting a prisoner to proceed to trial on a retaliation claim. For example, in Bennett, we
permitted the prisoner to proceed to trial where disciplinary charges were filed as he was in the
process of successfully settling a lawsuit against prison officials and the disciplinary charges
“were subsequently found to have been unjustified.” Id.; see also Gayle v. Gonyea, 313 F.3d
677, 683-84 (2d Cir. 2002) (prisoner permitted to proceed to trial where there was temporal
proximity between a grievance and a misbehavior report and the “testimony at the disciplinary
hearing also shed[] doubt on the accuracy of the accusations stated in the misbehavior report”).
Similarly, in Espinal v. Goord, we held that a trial was required where only six months separated
3
the dismissal of Espinal’s lawsuit and an allegedly retaliatory beating by two officers, one of
whom was a defendant in the lawsuit, and there was evidence that the other was aware of the
lawsuit. See 558 F.3d 119, 129-30 (2d Cir. 2009).
Finally, in Colon v. Coughlin, upon which Faulk relies, Colon introduced evidence that
he was brought up on drug- and weapon-related disciplinary charges immediately after winning a
lawsuit against prison officials; he had never before been found in possession of either drugs or
weapons while in prison; and the prison official who had authorized the contraband search told
Colon that he had been “framed” because of his lawsuit. See 58 F.3d 865, 868, 872-73 (2d Cir.
1995). In that case, we opined that if the circumstantial evidence of retaliation — Colon’s prior
good behavior and the temporal proximity between the lawsuit and the disciplinary charges —
“represented the sum total of Colon’s proof, we might be inclined to affirm the grant of summary
judgment” given the weakness of his case and the ease with which prisoner retaliation claims
could be fabricated. Id. at 873 (citing Flaherty v. Coughlin, 713 F.2d 10, 13 (2d Cir. 1983)). We
nonetheless permitted Colon to proceed to trial because he had presented direct evidence of
retaliation: the prison official’s statement that he had been framed. See id.
Here, Faulk has introduced circumstantial evidence of retaliation: his “excellent”
disciplinary history prior to his successful grievance, and the two misbehavior reports issued by
corrections officers Michael Gian and Jacob Lukaszek the day after Faulk succeeded on his
grievance. But he can point to no more. Faulk alleged that corrections counselor Patrick
Kelleher commented on his successful grievance and warned him against filing more; but
Kelleher neither initiated nor authorized the two challenged misbehavior reports. Cf. Colon, 58
F.3d at 868, 873. Gian and Lukaszek did, and Faulk points to no evidence suggesting that they
were motivated by, or even aware of, his successful grievance. First, neither of those officers
4
were named in the successful grievance. Cf. Espinal, 558 F.3d at 129. Second, while Faulk
alleged that Gian was present during a meeting when Kelleher reprimanded him, he made no
allegation that the successful grievance was discussed during that meeting. Cf. Espinal, 558 F.3d
at 129. To the extent Faulk alleged that Kelleher “used” Gian to file the misbehavior report,
such conclusory allegations are insufficient to withstand summary judgment. See Bennett, 343
F.3d at 137 (noting that this Court is “careful to require non-conclusory allegations” in support
of prisoner retaliation claims). Similarly, while Faulk alleged that prior to issuing his
misbehavior report, Lukaszek had asked whether Faulk had a “problem” with Kelleher and
“reminded” him that “the counselors and corrections officers run Gowanda,” there is no
indication that Lukaszek mentioned the successful grievance. Finally, the defendants introduced
evidence that the misbehavior reports were substantiated. Cf. Bennett, 343 F.3d at 137; Gayle,
313 F.3d at 683-84.
Given the absence of any further evidence of retaliatory intent on the part of Gian and
Lukaszek, we affirm the district court’s summary judgment decision on the retaliation claim. See
Colon, 58 F.3d at 873.
We have considered all of Faulk’s remaining arguments and find them to be without
merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5