Bridges v. Gilbert

Decision Date04 March 2009
Docket NumberNo. 07-1551.,07-1551.
Citation557 F.3d 541
PartiesJimmy D. BRIDGES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tim GILBERT, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Timothy J. Barron, Alexander Rozenblat (argued), Jenner & Block, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Mary E. Sheehan (argued), Office of the Attorney General, Madison, WI, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and WOOD and TINDER, Circuit Judges.

TINDER, Circuit Judge.

Jimmy Bridges, an inmate at the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility, witnessed events leading to the death of a fellow inmate. After he assisted the inmate's mother by providing an affidavit in a wrongful death lawsuit against prison officials, Bridges perceived that certain prison officials and guards (to whom we refer collectively as "Defendants") had begun to harass him. He filed a pro se § 1983 action alleging that the Defendants retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment rights and prevented him from petitioning the government for redress of grievances. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.

I. Background

Because this appeal is taken from the district court's dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim, we consider as true the facts alleged in the complaint. Windy City Metal Fabricators & Supply, Inc. v. CIT Technology Fin. Servs., Inc., 536 F.3d 663, 666 (7th Cir.2008). Bridges was housed in the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility in a cell adjacent to inmate Donnie Powe. On the night of March 14, 2003, Bridges yelled through a vent to greet Powe. Powe complained to Bridges that his drinking cup contained a terrible smell, and he had been vomiting. A nurse brought Powe some Tylenol and Tums. The next morning, Bridges called through the vent again to check on Powe. Powe responded in a weak voice that he was really sick, his body was hurting all over, and he could not eat. Later, a correctional officer asked Powe whether he could hand his meal tray to the officer, but Powe did not respond. Several different officers repeated the question over the next few hours, but Powe never answered. The officers eventually called another nurse to check on Powe. Around the same time, other correctional officers also came to Powe's cell, and Powe told them he was in terrible pain and could not move. A group of at least four officers threatened to "suit up" on him, i.e., to beat him, for not responding. About 45 minutes later, prison staff extracted Powe from his cell in a restraint chair and took him to be monitored in the Health Services Unit. Powe died the following day.

Powe's mother Eunice brought a wrongful death suit against several prison employees, and her attorneys interviewed Bridges in March 2005 as a witness to the care Powe received while in his cell. Bridges provided an affidavit and agreed to testify if the case went to trial. He was informed that his affidavit had been used by the attorneys in a summary judgment response filed in April 2005, and later he learned that the parties had reached a settlement agreement.

Bridges believes that Defendants began a campaign of harassment against him in retaliation for his participation in the Powe lawsuit. From March to December 2005, certain Defendants caused his incoming and outgoing mail to be delayed. One Defendant often kicked his cell door, turned his cell light off and on, and opened his cell trap and slammed it shut to startle him when he was sleeping. He complained to her in November 2005, and in response, she filed an unjustified disciplinary charge against him. Another Defendant upgraded that unjustified charge to a "major offense," indicating that his conduct created a risk of serious disruption at the prison. Bridges was later cleared of any wrongdoing in connection with the disciplinary charge.

Bridges filed several grievances in response to these incidents, and he believes the retaliation continued through improper treatment of his grievances. A few examples—Defendants found technical reasons to repeatedly reject his grievances, such as alleging too many issues in a single grievance or not alleging enough facts to support the issues; Defendants falsely stated that his grievance appeal had not been filed within the required time period and dismissed it; and Defendants failed to perform investigations on his grievances or provided misleading information in their responses.

On September 22, 2006, Bridges filed a pro se § 1983 action with the district court, claiming that the Defendants retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment rights to free speech and to petition for redress of grievances, and also prevented him from filing grievances. The district court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and dismissed the claims against five Defendants because Bridges had not alleged facts to support claims against them.1 The remaining nine Defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and for Bridges's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Citing Brookins v. Kolb, 990 F.2d 308 (7th Cir.1993), the district court concluded that Bridges did not state a claim because he did not engage in protected First Amendment activity. He filed an affidavit in a wrongful death lawsuit that was personal to Powe—which did not rise to the level of a public concern so as to constitute protected conduct. Because the court concluded that he did not engage in protected activity, the court declined to address whether Bridges had exhausted his administrative remedies. Bridges appeals from the Rule 12(b)(6) ruling but does not challenge the dismissal of five Defendants under § 1915A.

II. Discussion

We review a district court's grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim de novo. St. John's United Church of Christ v. City of Chicago, 502 F.3d 616, 625 (7th Cir.2007). To satisfy the notice-pleading standard, a complaint must provide a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," which is sufficient to provide the defendant with "fair notice" of the claim and its basis. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (per curiam) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)); Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The complaint "must actually suggest that the plaintiff has a right to relief, by providing allegations that raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Windy City, 536 F.3d at 668 (citing Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir.2008)). However, we construe pro se complaints liberally and hold them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Erickson, 127 S.Ct. at 2200 (citation omitted); Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 492 n.2 (7th Cir.2008).

A. Bridges's Free Speech Claim

To prevail on a First Amendment retaliation claim, Bridges must ultimately show that (1) he engaged in activity protected by the First Amendment; (2) he suffered a deprivation that would likely deter First Amendment activity in the future; and (3) the First Amendment activity was "at least a motivating factor" in the Defendants' decision to take the retaliatory action. Woodruff v. Mason, 542 F.3d 545, 551 (7th Cir.2008) (quoting Massey v. Johnson, 457 F.3d 711, 716 (7th Cir.2006)). Bridges's complaint alleged that Defendants retaliated against him for participating in the Powe lawsuit. The district court determined that Bridges's complaint failed to state a claim because his allegations, taken as true, would not satisfy the first element, that he had engaged in activity protected by the First Amendment. In reaching this conclusion, the district court relied on the free speech discussion from our decision in Brookins.

In Brookins, a prison inmate filed a § 1983 complaint claiming that prison officials had retaliated against him by removing him from his position co-chairing a prison-approved group called the Paralegal Base Committee (which assisted inmates with legal research and preparing legal documents) and then transferring him to another facility. The retaliation occurred after Brookins wrote a letter, written on official Committee letterhead and sent to various prison officials, requesting that all security staff involved in filing negative conduct reports against a certain inmate be given polygraph examinations prior to the inmate's disciplinary hearing. He also offered to pay for the exams from the funds of the Committee. Under the prison's regulations, Brookins should have requested permission from the Committee's advisor prior to sending the correspondence; he also should have had the Committee's advisor co-sign the request, since it purported to authorize spending of Committee funds. Brookins did neither. As a result, he was removed from the Committee and transferred to another prison shortly thereafter.

Brookins asserted a violation of his First Amendment associational right to act on behalf of the other prisoners. We explained that a prisoner's constitutional rights, particularly associational rights, are necessarily curtailed by imprisonment. Id. at 312-13. We concluded that Brookins had not satisfied his burden on summary judgment to demonstrate that the prison officials, in reacting to Brookins's violation of the regulations, "exaggerated their response to preserving the legitimate penological objectives of the prison environment." Id. at 313. Brookins also claimed that his letter implicated his free speech rights, but we rejected his argument because "he ha[d] not demonstrated that the speech contained in his letter rose to the level of protected speech. Brookins did not write the letter to inform the prison officials about a prison issue that was a matter of public issue or concern." Id. For support, we cited to Justice...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1706 cases
  • Thomas v. Illinois
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Illinois
    • 9 Agosto 2012
    ...the underlying deprivation of property or writing materials does not violate the constitution in and of itself. See Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541, 552 (7th Cir. 2009). ...
  • Miller v. Ghilarducci
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 18 Octubre 2017
    ...First Amendment right to assist a deceased inmate's mother in her wrongful death lawsuit against prison officials. Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541, 544, 555 (7th Cir.2009). The Bridges court applied Turner to find that "[p]risons have an interest in keeping the inmates as safe and secure a......
  • Brown v. City of Fort Wayne
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana
    • 4 Noviembre 2010
    ...in the future,” and whether the speech substantially motivated the retaliation. Watkins, 599 F.3d at 794 (quoting Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541, 546 (7th Cir.2009)); see Spiegla v. Hull, 371 F.3d 928, 935, 942 (7th Cir.2004); Morfin v. City of East Chicago, 349 F.3d 989, 1005 (7th Cir.20......
  • Tichinin v. City of Morgan Hill
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 21 Septiembre 2009
    ...676, 686; Keenan v. Tejeda (5th Cir. 2002) 290 F.3d 252, 258; Bloch v. Ribar (6th Cir. 1998) 156 F.3d 673, 678; Bridges v. Gilbert (7th Cir. 2009) 557 F.3d 541, 546, 552; Carroll v. Pfeffer (8th Cir. 2001) 262 F.3d 847, 850; Mendocino Environmental Center v. Mendocino County (9th Cir. 1999)......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Prisoners' Rights
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • 1 Agosto 2022
    ...1083-84 (6th Cir. 2019) (regulation preventing prisoner from celebrating religious holiday unreasonable under Turner); Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541, 551-52 (7th Cir. 2009) (action retaliating against prisoner who testif‌ied against prison guards involved in abuse incident unreasonable u......
  • The Big Man in the Big House: Prisoner Free Exercise in Light of Employment Division v. Smith
    • United States
    • Louisiana Law Review No. 73-1, October 2012
    • 1 Julio 2012
    ...scrutiny of prison regulations and imposes a 99. 197 F.3d 290, 292 (7th Cir. 1999) (writing in dicta), abrogated by Braden v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541 (7th Cir. 2009). 100. See id. 101. Id . 102. Id . 103. Id . 104. Judge Posner echoed this sentiment in the recent case of Grayson v. Schuler , ......
  • OVERBROAD INJUNCTIONS AGAINST SPEECH (ESPECIALLY IN LIBEL AND HARASSMENT CASES).
    • United States
    • Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Vol. 45 No. 1, January 2022
    • 1 Enero 2022
    ...v. Cent. Curry Sch. Dist., 108 P.3d 671, 674-75 (Or. Ct. App. 2005) (likewise for junior high school student speech); Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541, 551 (7th Cir. 2009) (likewise for prisoner speech); Startzell v. City of Phila., No. CIV.A.05-05287, 2007 WL 172400, at *5 n.6 (E.D. Pa. Ja......
  • Recent Legal Developments: Correctional Case Law: 2009
    • United States
    • Criminal Justice Review No. 35-2, June 2010
    • 1 Junio 2010
    ...deGruyter.Branham, L. S. (2002). The law of sentencing, corrections, and prisoners’ rights. St. Paul, MN: West Group.Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541 (7th Cir. 2009).Bryd v. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department, 565 F.3d 1205 (9th Cir. 2009).Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592 (7th Cir.2009).Bu......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT