Graham v. Henderson

Decision Date11 July 1996
Docket NumberNo. 660,D,660
Citation89 F.3d 75
PartiesPatrick GRAHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R.J. HENDERSON, Former Superintendent, Auburn Correctional Facility; Hans Walker, Superintendent, Auburn Correctional Facility; Lieutenant V. Mahunik; Sergeant M. Vasquez; C. Ciaschi, Correction Officer; Gary Anthony, Industrial Superintendent, Auburn Correctional Facility; William A. Gabak, General Foreman; John Nelson Decker, I.T.S., Defendants-Appellees. ocket 95-2387.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

(Patrick Graham, Ossining, NY, Pro Se).

(Dennis C. Vacco, Attorney General of the State of New York, Peter H. Schiff, Deputy Solicitor General, Peter G. Crary, Assistant Attorney General, Troy Oechsner, Assistant Attorney General, Albany, NY, of counsel), for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: KEARSE, MINER and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PARKER, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff Patrick Graham, pro se and incarcerated, appeals from an order of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York (Harold Baer, Jr., Judge ) dated June 14, 1995, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the complaint. The court held that inmate Graham failed to meet his threshold burden of demonstrating that prison officials had a retaliatory motive for filing misbehavior reports against him. Graham alleged that the reports were punishment for his leadership in protesting the proposed loss of showers in the prison industrial workshop, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 (civil action for deprivation of constitutional rights), 1985(3) (conspiracy to interfere with civil rights), and 1986 (action for failure to prevent § 1985 violation).

We hold that Graham met his threshold burden of establishing retaliatory motive, creating a genuine issue of material fact. Accordingly, we vacate so much of the judgment as dismissed the claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and remand for further proceedings. We affirm the summary order dismissing the racial discrimination claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986.

I. BACKGROUND

In his complaint filed June 1990, Graham alleges the following. On July 7, 1989, two Inmate Grievance Resolution Committee representatives visited the prison industrial workshop where Graham was working, at Auburn Correctional Facility, New York, in order to investigate grievances concerning the proposed elimination of showers in the workshop. Graham showed the representatives--Virginia Reddick, a corrections officer, and Kenneth Jenkins, a prisoner--around the workshop and agreed to obtain the names of four or five prisoners who would be willing to represent the other prisoners in the grievance process. After the representatives left, Graham went around the workshop and obtained the names of five inmates.

Sergeant Vasquez interrogated Graham regarding whether he was circulating a petition. Graham denied that he was. A search of Graham's personal belongings produced a piece of paper blank except for the names, numbers, and cell locations of five prisoners. Defendants shop foreman John Decker and Correction Officer C. Ciaschi wrote misbehavior reports charging Graham with violating prison rules prohibiting inmates from urging a work slowdown or stoppage. Prison rule 104.12 provides:

Inmates shall not lead, organize, participate, or urge other inmates to participate, in work-stoppages, sit-ins, lock-ins, or other actions which may be detrimental to the order of the facility.

N.Y. Comp.Codes R. & Regs. tit. 7, § 270.2(B)(5)(iii). Both reports charge that Graham circulated a petition in the workshop and that after speaking with the other inmates, they would stop working.

Graham claims that he was neither circulating a petition nor urging a work slowdown, and that he and most of the other inmates did not have any work that day because there were no parts or production orders.

On July 12, 1989, defendant Lieutenant V. Mahunik conducted a disciplinary hearing regarding the misbehavior reports. Graham called eleven witnesses. Inmates Henn, Murphy, Hernandez, and Smith testified that Graham spoke to them individually at the workshop regarding their grievances over the proposed removal of the showers. The inmates denied that Graham was circulating a petition or organizing a work stoppage. Inmate Jenkins testified that seventeen inmates, including Graham, had filed grievances regarding the closure of the showers. Jenkins stated that he had asked Graham to identify several inmates who were willing to speak at an upcoming hearing on the closure.

Shop foreman Decker testified that Graham had the inmates sign a piece of paper that appeared to be a petition. He conceded that the piece of paper that Graham subsequently produced for Sergeant Vasquez was blank apart from inmate signatures, but stated that the original paper may have been different because it appeared to have paragraphs of writing on it in addition to the signatures. Decker testified that when he urged the inmates to work, Graham "would go around behind me and start talking to 'em and they just quit and sit [sic ] down." Correction Officer Ciaschi also testified that Graham appeared to be asking the inmates to sign a piece of paper with what appeared to be paragraphs on it, and that there appeared to be a work slowdown. General foreman Gabak testified that inmates were talking and not working where Graham was located. Sergeant Vasquez testified that Decker had called him to the floor because Graham was causing a work slowdown. He stated that Graham denied circulating a petition and produced a piece of paper with only inmate signatures on it.

Relying on the two misbehavior reports and witness testimony, Lieutenant Mahunik found Graham guilty of urging a work slowdown and sentenced him to 180 days confinement in the Special Housing Unit and loss of privileges.

Prior to the foregoing July 7th incident, in June 1989, Graham filed an Article 78 proceeding in New York state court to prohibit removal of showers in the workshop. In September, the proceeding was dismissed as moot because Graham had been sent to a Special Housing Unit and was therefore no longer affected by the intended shower removal.

On July 14, 1989, Graham administratively appealed Lieutenant Mahunik's decision, claiming that it lacked substantial evidence. On September 8, the decision was administratively affirmed.

In June 1990, Graham filed the complaint in this case in district court. Magistrate Judge DiBianco repeatedly denied Graham's motions for appointment of counsel. From 1991 to 1992, Graham served interrogatories. In June 1993, the defendants moved for summary judgment. The defendants also claimed that Graham had failed to state a claim against Henderson, Walker, and Anthony because they were not personally involved in the events of July 7 or the subsequent hearing, or, in the alternative, because they were entitled to qualified immunity. (Graham subsequently dismissed his complaint against Henderson, Walker, and Anthony.) The defendants further claimed that Graham should be denied relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because he had been afforded due process: receiving notice of, and opportunity to be heard at, the disciplinary hearing and obtaining a decision based on evidence. In his reply, Graham disputed that the inmates stopped working after signing his paper and claimed that receiving a hearing in accord with due process is not relevant to a § 1983 retaliation claim.

In November 1994, Chief Judge McAvoy of the Northern District of New York transferred the case to Judge Baer to dispose of the pretrial motions. On June 14, 1995, the district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, denied Graham's cross-motion, and dismissed the complaint. Graham v. Henderson, No. 90 Civ. 692(HB), slip op. at 5 (N.D.N.Y.).

Graham appeals.

II. DISCUSSION
A. Summary Judgment

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Lowrance v. Achtyl, 20 F.3d 529, 534 (2d Cir.1994). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), summary judgment may be granted only when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). While genuineness runs to whether disputed factual issues can "reasonably be resolved in favor of either party," Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986), materiality runs to whether the dispute matters, i.e., whether it concerns facts that can affect the outcome under the applicable substantive law, id. at 248, 106 S.Ct. at 2510. A reasonably disputed, legally essential issue is both genuine and material and must be resolved at trial. See id. at 248, 250, 106 S.Ct. at 2510, 2511.

The evidence of the party opposing summary judgment is "to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in [that party's] favor." Id. at 255, 106 S.Ct. at 2513. Moreover, the pleadings of a pro se plaintiff must be read liberally and should be interpreted "to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest." Burgos v. Hopkins, 14 F.3d 787, 790 (2d Cir.1994).

B. Section 1983 Claim

Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code establishes liability for deprivation under the color of state law "of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution."

Graham alleges that Decker and Ciaschi filed false misbehavior reports against him in retaliation for his leadership in filing a grievance to protest the removal of the workshop showers. In Mount Healthy Sch. Dist. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287, 97 S.Ct. 568, 576, 50 L.Ed.2d 471(1977), the Supreme Court established the standard for a § 1983 claim that the state actor retaliated against a plaintiff for exercising a constitutional right. The plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the conduct at issue was constitutionally protected...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1463 cases
  • Augusto Fernandes, Maria Fernandes, Acf Family Holding Corp v. Moran
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • 7 Mayo 2018
    ...overruledon other grounds, Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 122 S. Ct. 992, 152 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2002); see also Graham v. Henderson, 89 F.3d 75, 79 (2d Cir. 1996) (same); Gagliardi v. Vill. of Pawling, 18 F.3d 188, 195 (2d Cir. 1994) ("a bald and uncorroborated allegation of retaliat......
  • Speringo v. McLaughlin, 00 CIV. 7964(VM).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • 25 Abril 2002
    ...does not construe Speringo's petition and pleadings with the same leniency it grants pro se petitioners, see, e.g., Graham v. Henderson, 89 F.3d 75, 79 (2d Cir.1996) (liberal construction of pro se petition for habeas corpus), the Court addresses Speringo's suggestion, in part because the S......
  • Macintyre v. Moore, 6:15-CV-06660 EAW
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Western District of New York
    • 28 Septiembre 2018
    ...Tulloch v. Erie Cty. Holding Ctr. , No. 10-CV-0207S, 2010 WL 2609054, at *2 n.2 (W.D.N.Y. June 24, 2010) (citing Graham v. Henderson , 89 F.3d 75, 79 (2d Cir. 1996) ("[T]he pleadings of a pro se plaintiff must be read liberally and should be interpreted to raise the strongest arguments that......
  • Ramsey v. Goord
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Western District of New York
    • 24 Septiembre 2009
    ...protected and that the protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor in the prison officials' [actions]." Graham v. Henderson, 89 F.3d 75, 79 (2d Cir.1996). Upon satisfying this burden, the burden shifts to defendants to establish that the same adverse action would have been take......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Recent Legal Developments
    • United States
    • Criminal Justice Review No. 37-2, June 2012
    • 1 Junio 2012
    ...653 F.3d 550 (7th Cir. 2011).Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington, 131 S. Ct. 1816 (2011).Graham v. Henderson, 89 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 1996).Gross, B. (2008). Prison violence: Does brutality come with the badge? Forensic Examiner,17, 21–27.Guerino, P., & Beck, A. J. (......

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