Jones v. Huffman-Phillips

• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
• Writing for the Court: LEWIS. M. BLANTON
• Decision Date: 19 February 2014
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:12 CV 70 LMB
• Citation: Jones v. Huffman-Phillips, Case No. 1:12 CV 70 LMB (E.D. Mo. Feb 19, 2014)
• Parties: EUGENE KENNETH JONES, Plaintiff, v. PAULA HUFFMAN-PHILLIPS, et al., Defendants.

EUGENE KENNETH JONES, Plaintiff, v. PAULA HUFFMAN-PHILLIPS, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 1:12 CV 70 LMB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

Dated: February 19, 2014

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff has filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several officials at Southeast Correctional Center ("SECC"), alleging that his constitutional rights were violated when defendants denied him hygiene items and legal supplies. Plaintiff also alleges a retaliation claim. This case has been assigned to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to the Civil Justice Reform Act and is being heard by consent of the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

This matter is before the court on the separate motions to reconsider filed by plaintiff and defendants (Docs. No. 133, 135, 136).

Background

At the time of the allegations, plaintiff was incarcerated at SECC. Plaintiff alleges that he was denied basic hygiene items such as a toothbrush and toothpaste because all of his money was removed from his account as soon as it was deposited to pay State court filing fees. Plaintiff claims that defendants would not provide him with such items, and they forced him to choose between having hygiene items and pursuing his claims in State court. Plaintiff alleges he has suffered negative health consequences as a result. Plaintiff further alleges that DefendantHuffman-Phillips has retaliated against him due to his complaints regarding hygiene items. Plaintiff also claims he is being denied legal supplies.

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. No. 71). Defendants Paula Huffman-Phillips, Angela Riddell, Regina Beggs, Cheryl Thompson, Jackie Cooper, Johnny Williams, Penny Milburn, Omer Clark, Jeffrey Norman, Ian Wallace, Dwayne Kempker, Mariann Atwell, and Richard Murray ("MDOC Defendants"); and Defendants Ruth Taylor and Rick Jones, DDS ("Medical Defendants") each filed separate motions for summary judgment. (Docs. No. 90, 93).

On September 30, 2013, the court denied plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, and denied the Medical Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The undersigned granted the MDOC Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in part and denied it in part. The court entered summary judgment in favor of MDOC Defendants Jeff Norman and Ian Wallace on plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims, and in favor of the MDOC Defendants on plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim and plaintiff's First Amendment access to the courts claim. (Doc. No. 131).

On October 9, 2013, plaintiff filed a Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e), in which he requests that the court amend the judgment entered in favor of defendants on plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim and plaintiff's First Amendment access to the courts claim. (Doc. No. 133). On October 10, 2013, the Medical Defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e), in which they request that the court reconsider its ruling on the Medical Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. No. 135). On the same date, the MDOC Defendants filed a Motion to Join the Medical Defendants' Motion to Reconsider.(Doc. No. 136).

Discussion

A district court has broad discretion in determining whether to grant a motion to alter or amend judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). See United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006). Rule 59(e) motions "serve the limited function of correcting manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d at 933 (internal quotes omitted). The purpose of Rule 59 is to allow the district court "the power to rectify its own mistakes in the period immediately following the entry of judgment." Norman v. Arkansas Dep't of Educ., 79 F.3d 748, 750 (8th Cir. 1996) (quoting White v. New Hampshire Dep't of Employment Sec., 455 U.S. 445, 450 (1982)). A Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment must show: "1) an intervening change in controlling law; 2) the availability of new evidence not available previously; or 3) the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice." Bannister v. Armontrout, 807 F. Supp. 516, 556 (W.D. Mo. 1991), aff'd, 4 F.3d 1434 (8th Cir. 1993).

Importantly, a motion to reconsider "cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before the trial court entered final judgment." Garner v. Arvin Indus. Inc., 77 F.3d 255, 258 (8th Cir. 1996). See Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 1988) (stating that a Rule 59(e) motion should not "serve as the occasion to tender new legal theories for the first time") (internal quotes omitted); Innovative Home Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Associates of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998) (Rule 59(e) "cannot be used to introduce new evidence, tender new legal theories, or raise arguments which could have been offered or raised prior to entry of judgment").

I. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration

Plaintiff requests that the court amend its judgments entered in favor of defendants on plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim and First Amendment access to the courts claim.

A. Retaliation

Plaintiff claims that the court applied an improper "heightened burden of proof," with regard to the second element of his retaliation claim in citing Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017, 1025 (8th Cir. 2012).

In its Memorandum and Order, the court stated as follows:

To establish a § 1983 claim for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, a plaintiff must allege: (1) that he engaged in a protected activity, (2) that the defendants responded with adverse action that would "chill a person of ordinary firmness" from continuing in the activity, and (3) that "the adverse action was motivated at least in part by the exercise of the protected activity." Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017, 1025 (8th Cir. 2012).

(Doc. No. 130, p. 21).

Plaintiff contends that the second element noted in Beaulieu, the requirement that plaintiff show defendants responded with adverse action that would "chill a person of ordinary firmness" from continuing in the activity, is an improper heightened standard. Plaintiff's argument lacks merit. The decision cited by the court is recent Eight Circuit authority and does not require a heightened burden of proof. See also L.L. Nelson Enters., Inc. v. Cnty. of St. Louis, Mo., 673 F.3d 799, 807-08 (8th Cir. 2012); Revels v. Vincenz, 382 F.3d 870, 874 (8th Cir. 2004) (citing same standard set out in Beaulieu).

Plaintiff also argues, as he did in his Motion for Summary Judgment, that genuine issues of fact exist regarding his retaliation claim because Defendant Huffman-Phillips placed him in a non-paying job for ninety days at a time when he was complaining about not receiving hygiene items.The court found that Defendant Huffman-Phillips' act of assigning plaintiff a job cannot be considered adverse action to support a retaliation claim. (Doc. No. 130, p. 22). The undersigned noted that, while the initial position plaintiff was assigned was unpaid for ninety days, Defendant Huffman-Phillips indicated that plaintiff could work his way into a paid position and that she would assist him in doing so. (Id.). Plaintiff does not dispute that it was the role of Defendant Huffman-Phillips as a Functional Unit Manager to ensure plaintiff was working towards rehabilitation. Plaintiff has failed to set forth grounds to alter the court's prior determination granting the MDOC Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on his retaliation claim.

B. Access to the Courts

Plaintiff argues that the court erred in granting the MDOC Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on his access to the courts claim because defendants failed to provide any legal supplies or legal assistance to plaintiff. Plaintiff states that he obtained legal supplies and assistance from someone else.

The court held that plaintiff failed to demonstrate he was prejudiced due to a lack of access to the courts, as plaintiff was not hindered in his ability to file and prosecute the instant action, as well as other actions. To state a claim for denial of meaningful access to the courts, inmates must assert that they suffered an actual injury to pending or contemplated legal claims. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996); Myers v. Hundley, 101 F.3d 542, 544 (8th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff does not argue that he suffered any injury due to defendants' alleged failure to provide legal supplies or legal assistance. Thus, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a basis to reconsider the court's decision granting the MDOC's Motion for Summary Judgment as to plaintiff's access to the court's claim.

Accordingly, plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) will be denied.

II. Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration

The Medical Defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration, in which they request that the court reverse its prior decision and grant summary judgment in the Medical Defendants' favor on all claims raised by plaintiff in his Amended Complaint. The Medical Defendants contend that the court erred in the following respects: (1) the court erred in its legal analysis regarding the objectively serious harm component of plaintiff's Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim; (2) the court made a mistake of fact in concluding that the Medical Defendants had discretion to provide dental hygiene items.

As previously noted, the remaining MDOC Defendants filed a Motion to Join the Medical Defendants' Motion to Reconsider, in which they request that the court reverse its Memorandum and Order and grant the MDOC Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety. The court will grant the MDOC Defendants' motion to join, and will discuss the claims raised in defendants' joint motion in turn.

A. Objectively Serious Harm

Defendants argue that plaintiff failed to meet his burden that he suffered...