Gunn v. Malani

Background

Darrell Gunn, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Correction Officer Thomas Milani violated the First Amendment by retaliating against him for filing prison grievances while he was incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility. The opinion’s caption identifies the defendant as Thomas Milani; the opinion explains that the docket initially used the spelling “Malani” and later reflected “Milani.”

On June 1, 2017, Gunn moved to a new cell and left five bags of belongings outside while he cleaned the cell. Gunn testified that Milani said the bags were a fire hazard and, when Milani returned several minutes later, said words to the effect of “you write grievances, you’re keeplocked.” Gunn was then held in keeplock—disciplinary confinement in his cell—for approximately one day. He later filed a grievance about the incident, but the grievance and his appeals were denied.

Motion and arguments

Milani moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the evidence shows that no important factual dispute requires a trial. Milani argued that Gunn lacked evidence of a causal connection between his grievance activity and the keeplock placement. Milani also argued that Gunn would have been placed in keeplock regardless of any retaliatory motive because Gunn did not move the bags after being told they created a fire hazard.

Gunn did not submit the required response to Milani’s statement of facts. The court nevertheless independently reviewed the record and gave Gunn the special consideration afforded to a self-represented litigant when opposing summary judgment. The court also noted that an unverified complaint is not evidence that can be relied on at summary judgment, but it considered Gunn’s deposition testimony and other admissible record materials.

Court’s analysis

The court treated the case as involving one First Amendment retaliation claim. To prove that claim, Gunn had to show protected activity, an adverse action, and a connection between the two. Milani did not dispute for purposes of the motion that filing prison grievances was protected activity or that keeplock could qualify as an adverse action.

The court focused on causation. Two facts weakened Gunn’s inference of retaliation: his disciplinary history, which included prior keeplock placements and misbehavior reports, and the denial of his grievance and appeals. But two other facts supported the claim. First, Gunn filed a grievance about the package room approximately one week before the incident. Although the grievance did not name or concern Milani, the court held that Milani’s lack of involvement in the grievance did not by itself defeat the claim. Second, Gunn testified that Milani referred to his grievance activity and told him he was being placed in keeplock for writing grievances. If believed, that testimony was direct evidence of retaliatory motive rather than merely an unsupported conclusion.

The court also rejected Milani’s argument that the keeplock placement would have occurred anyway. Milani did not provide evidence about the facility’s disciplinary policies or procedures showing that keeplock was required or authorized under the circumstances. The record also contained Gunn’s testimony that another correction officer had told him he could keep his property outside the cell while cleaning and sanitizing it. The court therefore found a factual dispute about whether Gunn would have been placed in keeplock even without an alleged retaliatory motive.

Disposition

Judge Kenneth M. Karas denied Milani’s Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety. The court concluded that a reasonable jury could find that Gunn’s grievance activity caused the keeplock placement, and that the factual disputes—including the conflicting accounts of what was said and whether Gunn was required to move the bags—could not be resolved by the court at the summary-judgment stage. The order did not determine whether Milani is ultimately liable.