Tolliver v. Jordan

Background

Eric Tolliver filed this action without a lawyer, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. He claimed that correctional officials retaliated against him for filing grievances and civil actions by transferring him between facilities.

A prior order dismissed Tolliver’s Fourteenth Amendment claims with prejudice. It allowed his First Amendment retaliation claim concerning his transfer to Attica Correctional Facility to continue against Lieutenant Jordan, C.O. DePaolo, and C.O. E. Bonnell, but only for money damages. Tolliver’s retaliation claims against Gabriela Vega and Richard Houck were later dismissed with prejudice after he did not file an amended pleading. The Attica-transfer retaliation claim was the only claim remaining when the parties moved for summary judgment.

Summary-Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows that there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must view reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing the motion, but that party must provide evidence—not speculation or unsupported assertions—of each essential part of the claim.

Analysis

A prisoner claiming First Amendment retaliation must show that: (1) the activity was protected; (2) officials took adverse action; and (3) the protected activity caused the adverse action. For purposes of their motion, the defendants did not dispute that Tolliver’s grievances and Court of Claims lawsuit were protected activity or that the transfer was adverse. They challenged the required causal connection.

The court also found that Jordan, DePaolo, and Bonnell were not personally involved in the transfer and lacked authority to decide it. The evidence showed that a non-party Offender Rehabilitation Coordinator prepared the transfer request because Tolliver and another incarcerated person needed to be separated after an altercation. Other non-party officials reviewed and approved the request, and Classification and Movement made the final decision about the transfer and destination.

Finally, the court held that the transfer would have occurred for a valid reason even if protected activity had played some role. The evidence showed that the request was made to promote the safety and security of Tolliver, the other incarcerated person, and the facility. The court concluded that Tolliver’s speculation and self-serving statements did not create a genuine factual dispute or establish retaliation.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied Tolliver’s motion for summary judgment. It dismissed Tolliver’s amended complaint and directed the Clerk to close the case. The court did not reach the defendants’ alternative argument that they were entitled to qualified immunity.