Kornagay v. Burt, Case No. 3:09cv281/LAC/EMT
| Decision Date | 08 February 2011 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:09cv281/LAC/EMT |
| Parties | ROBERT D. KORNAGAY, Plaintiff, v. OFFICER BURT, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida |
Plaintiff Robert D. Kornagay ("Kornagay") proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Presently before the court is the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants (Doc. 83). Kornagay filed a Response in opposition to the motion (Doc. 116). As set forth below, the court recommends that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment be granted in part.
Kornagay, an inmate of the Florida Department of Corrections ("FDOC"), initiated this action by filing a civil rights complaint on June 28, 2009 (Doc. 1). The case was referred to the undersigned for the issuance of all preliminary orders and any recommendations to the district court regarding dispositive motions. See N. D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2(C); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)(C); and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). In the Fourth Amended Complaint (Doc. 78), which is the operative pleading in this case, Kornagay names seven Defendants, all of whom were prison officials at Santa Rosa Correctional Institution ("SRCI") at the time of the events giving rise to this action: Officer Burt, Officer Covan, Officer Engstrom, Officer Grace, Sergeant Raybon, Lieutenant Gielow, and Lieutenant Orsa (id. at 1-3).1 He contends Defendants retaliated against him for filing administrative grievances, in violation of the First Amendment, by: 1) writing false disciplinary reports, 2) spraying him with chemical agent, and 3) destroying his personal mail (id. at 6-12, 14). He additionally alleges Defendants Raybon, Gielow, and Orsa engaged in acts of excessive force, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, by: 1) spraying him with chemical agent, 2) placing him in a cell which was not properly decontaminated, and 3) maintaining him on the "management meal" without justification (id.). Kornagay also claims that Defendants conspired to deprive him of his First Amendment rights (id. at 12). As relief, Kornagay seeks a declaratory judgment and compensatory, punitive, and nominal damages (id. at 12, 14).2
Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment on July 27, 2010 (Doc. 83). The court issued an advisement order informing the parties of the importance and ramifications of summary judgment consideration and providing them with information as to the requirements for materials submitted for Rule 56 review (Doc. 84). Kornagay was given thirty days to respond to Defendants' motion (id.). Kornagay sought, and the court granted, additional time to conduct discovery and file a response to the motion for summary judgment (see Docs. 85, 89, 91, 93, 96, 104, 106). Kornagay filed his response in opposition to the motion for summary judgment on November 8, 2010 (see Docs. 114, 115, 116).
As this case comes before the court on Defendants' motion for summary judgment, the court views the facts in the light most favorable to Kornagay, the non-moving party, see Hairston v. Gainesville Sun Publ'g Co., 9 F.3d 913, 918 (11th Cir. 1993), drawing those facts from the pleadings, depositions, and other evidentiary materials on file. Nevertheless, the court observes that what are stated as "facts" herein for purposes of summary judgment review may not be the actual facts. See Montount v. Carr, 114 F.3d 181, 182 (11th Cir. 1997). The court conveys only those facts that are material.
Additionally, any facts included in Defendants' statement of undisputed material facts that are not controverted by Kornagay's statement of facts are deemed admitted. See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 56.1(A) ().
Finally, with regard to the factual positions asserted by the parties, the court applies the standard set forth in Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides in relevant part:
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) (2010). If a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party's assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the court will consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion for summary judgment, or grant summary judgment if Defendants' motion and supporting materials—including the facts considered undisputed—show that Defendants are entitled to it. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2, 3) (2010). Applying these standards, the court conveys the following as the material facts.
Since Kornagay's receipt into FDOC custody in 2003, he has been convicted of several disciplinary violations, including fighting, disobeying regulations and orders, unarmed assault, lying to staff, and spoken threats . On September 29, 2008, a disciplinary report was written against Kornagay for Lying to Staff (Doc. 83, Statement of Material and Genuine Facts ¶ 3, Ex. D; see also Doc. 116, Ex. G, Declaration of Robert D. Kornagay ¶ 2). Kornagay was found guilty and placed in disciplinary confinement for sixty days (Doc. 83, Statement of Material and Genuine Facts ¶ 3, Ex. D). Kornagay does not dispute that he was guilty of this infraction (Doc. 116, Ex. G, Kornagay Decl. ¶ 2).
During September and October of 2008, Kornagay filed grievances against Defendant Burt (Doc. 83, Ex. B, Affidavit of Joshua Burt ¶¶ 2, 9-10). Due to the numerous grievances filed by Kornagay against Defendant Burt, Burt attempted to limit his interaction with Kornagay (Doc. 83, Statement of Material and Genuine Facts ¶ 2, Ex. B, Burt Aff. ¶ 8). On October 5, 2008, Kornagay filed an informal grievance against Burt, alleging that Burt told him he could not talk to or sit next to certain inmates (Doc. 83, Statement of Material and Genuine Facts ¶ 4, Ex. E, p. 1; Doc. 116, Ex. G, Kornagay Decl. ¶ 1). On October 9, 2008, Burt denied Kornagay's October 5 grievance (see Doc. 83, Ex. E, p. 1; Doc. 116, Ex. G, Kornagay Decl. ¶ 1). On October 10, 2008, Burt gave Kornagay an unsatisfactory mark on his daily record of special housing for allegedly yelling on the wing and arguing with staff, allegations which Kornagay denies (see Doc. 83, Statement of Material and Genuine Facts ¶ 6, Ex. C, p. 5; Doc. 116, Ex. G, Kornagay Decl. ¶ 4). Prior to October 10, 2008, Burt did not "write up" Kornagay for any type of aggressive, violent, disrespectful, or threatening conduct (Doc. 116, Ex. W, Burt's Answers to Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories #2).
On October 11, 2008, Defendant Covan wrote Kornagay a disciplinary report for Spoken Threats (Doc. 83, Statement of Material and Genuine Facts ¶ 7, Ex. G, Ex. W, Affidavit of Matthew Covan ¶¶ 5-6). Kornagay denied the allegations, but the disciplinary team found him guilty and placed him In disciplinary confinement for thirty days (Doc. 83, Ex. G). Additionally, Kornagay's phone, visitation, dayroom, exercise, and out-of-cell educational programs privileges were suspended (Doc. 83, Ex. G, Ex. Z, p. 1). During the seven-month period prior to this disciplinary report, while Covan was assigned to Kornagay's dormitory, Covan had not issued Kornagay a disciplinary report or observed Kornagay engage in disruptive, aggressive, violent, disrespectful, or threatening conduct (Doc. 116, Ex. L, Covan's Answers to Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories #3, Ex. M, Covan's Answers to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories #16).
On October 12, 2008, Kornagay filed an informal grievance against Burt, alleging that Burt was threatening and harassing him for filing grievances against him (Doc. 83, Ex. E, p. 7). Defendant Gielow denied the grievance on the ground that he interviewed Burt, and Burt denied the allegations (id.). On October 15, 2008, Kornagay filed another informal grievance alleging that Burt was still harassing and threatening him, and Burt and Covan had conspired to write a false disciplinary report on October 11 (Doc. 83, Ex. E, p. 8). Gielow again denied the grievance on the ground that Burt denied Kornagay's allegations (id.). On October 16, 2008, Kornagay filed another informal grievance against Burt, alleging that Burt made racial slurs and a sexually harassing comment to him (Doc. 83, Ex. E, p. 9). Burt denied the allegations and denied the grievance (id.).
On October 16, 2008, Burt gave Kornagay an unsatisfactory mark on his daily housing record for allegedly yelling on the wing during count and improperly attempting to talk to other inmates while in the dayroom, allegations which Kornagay denies (Doc. 83, Statement of Material and Genuine Facts ¶ 8, Ex. C, p. 7; Doc. 116, Ex. G, Kornagay Decl. ¶ 4).
On October 17, 2008, Kornagay filed an informal grievance against Burt for allegedly interfering with his mail (Doc. 116, Ex. X). Also that day, Defendant Engstrom wrote Kornagay a disciplinary report for Spoken Threats (Doc. 83, Statement of Material and Genuine Facts ¶ 9, Ex. H, Affidavit of Joel...
To continue reading
Request your trial