Thompson v. Sperfslage

• Decision Date: 31 July 2015
• Docket Number: CIVIL NO. 4:14-cv-00030-RP-SBJ
• Parties: ERIC MEL THOMPSON, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM SPERFSLAGE, NICK LUDWICK, DAVE DEGRANGE, DEB NICHOLS, CONNIE PARMETER, PAUL GAGER, WILLIAM ELL, STEVE JANIC and TRICIA JOHNSTON, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa

ERIC MEL THOMPSON, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM SPERFSLAGE, NICK LUDWICK, DAVE DEGRANGE,DEB NICHOLS, CONNIE PARMETER, PAUL GAGER, WILLIAM ELL,STEVE JANIC and TRICIA JOHNSTON, Defendants.

CIVIL NO. 4:14-cv-00030-RP-SBJ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION

July 31, 2015

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I. INTRODUCTION

Eric Thompson is an inmate at the Fort Dodge Correctional Facility in Fort Dodge, Iowa. He filed a pro se Complaint (Doc. No. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 24, 2014, asserting various allegations against several individuals. His claims are primarily based on alleged violations of his constitutional rights from the application of Disciplinary Rule 34 which restricts inmates from engaging in a business while incarcerated. (Id. p. 2.) Thompson also asserts claims of retaliation. (Id.) He seeks injunctive relief and money damages. (Id.)

On December 8, 2014, defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 47) asserting they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. They contend Rule 34 was appropriately applied to Thompson and argue Thompson cannot establish his claims of retaliation. After being granted additional time to respond, Thompson filed a Brief (Doc. No. 56) and other supporting documents in resistance to the motion on April 16, 2015.

The case was referred to this magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for further proceedings, including further review of the record and the pleadings, an evidentiaryhearing, if necessary, hearing any oral arguments, and a submission of a report and recommendation regarding disposition of the case to United States Senior Judge Robert W. Pratt. (Order (Doc. No. 52).) This report and recommendation is hereby submitted pursuant to that order. For the following reasons, it is recommended that defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted.

II. HISTORY

Defendants contend Thompson's claims are precluded by decisions made by Judge Pratt, and ultimately affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in prior litigation brought by Thompson against employees of the Iowa Department of Corrections. In addition, Judge Pratt has narrowed the claims raised in the present action in prior orders. Consequently, a review of those proceedings is necessary to properly frame the summary judgment issues at hand.

A. Prior Litigation

A prior lawsuit was brought by Thompson against prison officials¹ in May of 2010 while he was an inmate at the Iowa State Penitentiary ("ISP") in Fort Madison, Iowa. (See Case No. 4:10-cv-00232-RP-CFB ("Thompson I").) Lawsuits brought by his daughter, Katie Beglin, and his mother, Delores Thompson, were later consolidated with his action. The core question of the combined litigation was "whether Defendants violated Plaintiffs' federal rights when they disciplined Eric for violating the prison rule against operating a business and prevented him from communicating with his mother and daughter about the business." (Order (Doc. No. 137) p. 1.) Plaintiffs asserted "Defendants violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments by (1) wrongly applying to Eric Thompson [the] prison rule against running a business, (2) in the alternative, applying an unconstitutionally vague and overbroad prison rule, and (3) applying the rule againstPlaintiffs in a retaliatory and discriminatory way." (Id. p. 2.) The disciplinary proceedings at issue occurred on or about December 19, 2009, March 7, 2010, March 19, 2010, October 21, 2010, and June 21, 2011. (Id. p. 9.)

On March 8, 2013, Judge Pratt concluded defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law and dismissed the case. (Id. p. 27.) Judge Pratt rejected plaintiffs' argument that Rule 34 was overbroad or void for vagueness and found "there was 'some evidence' to support the conclusion that [Eric] violated Rule 34 in each instance he was disciplined." (Id. pp. 20-23.) As set forth in the order, for prison disciplinary procedures, due process requires there be only "some evidence" to support the decision. (Id. at 22; citing Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56 (1985); Flowers v. Anderson, 661 F.3d 977, 980 (8th Cir. 2011).) Judge Pratt further found that Rule 34 does not excessively impinge on Thompson's constitutional rights under the analysis of Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987). (Id. pp. 23-25.)

Judge Pratt also rejected plaintiffs' claims of retaliation, stating that "[a] First Amendment retaliation claim fails if there is some evidence that the inmate violated a prison rule." (Id. pp. 25-26; citing Hartsfield v. Nichols, 511 F.3d 826, 829 (8th Cir. 2008); Henderson v. Baird, 29 F.3d 464, 469 (8th Cir. 1994).) Plaintiffs' alleged violation of equal protection rights was also rejected because Thompson failed to show he was "similarly situated to the other inmates who were treated differently." (Id. at 26.) Judge Pratt explained:

Thompson did not give limited advice to his family on one or two occasions. His continuing difficulties and increased punishment occurred as a result of his persistent refusal to abide by the prison rules. Under the circumstances, no reasonable juror could find he was denied his equal protection rights.

(Id.) Finally, even assuming plaintiffs could show the violation of constitutional rights, Judge Pratt determined defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. (Id. pp. 26-27.)

On April 14, 2014, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the decision concluding summary judgment in favor of defendants was warranted:

Viewing the admissible evidence before the district court in the light most favorable to appellants, the prison rule at issue was not unconstitutional on its face and was not unconstitutional as applied to Eric's conduct. See Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017, 1039 (8th Cir. 2012) (analysis of First Amendment facial challenge to prison rule); Kaden v. Slykhuis, 651 F.3d 966, 969 (8th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (analysis of First Amendment as-applied challenge to prison regulation); Phillips v. Norris, 320 F.3d 844, 848 (8th Cir. 2003) (analysis of inmate's equal protection claim).

Thompson v. Ault, 561 Fed.Appx. 585, 586 (8th Cir. 2014)(per curiam). Thompson's petitions for rehearing were denied (Doc. No. 170) by the Eighth Circuit and his petition for a writ of certiorari before the Supreme Court was closed on January 29, 2015, for failure to comply with the Supreme Court's order to pay the docket fee (Doc. No. 173).

B. Present Litigation

Eric Thompson initiated the present action by filing a pro se complaint (Doc. No. 1) on January 24, 2014, while an inmate at the Newton Correctional Facility in Newton, Iowa. His mother and daughter were also named plaintiffs. They asserted claims against the Governor of Iowa and several other individuals associated with the Iowa Department of Corrections.

As described in an Initial Review Order (Doc. No. 8) entered on February 10, 2014, plaintiffs alleged that certain defendants applied Disciplinary Rule 34 against Thompson in an unconstitutional manner, other defendants violated the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments when they found Thompson guilty of rule violations and imposed punishment on him, and certain defendants "encouraged and manipulated lower-ranking officers to retaliate against Eric Thompson by moving him from institution to institution, filing false disciplinary reports against him, not responding to his claims on appeal of the disciplinary reports, not responding to kites, withholding legal work, acting with deliberate indifference to his safety, and acting with deliberate indifference to his medical needs." (Id.) Plaintiffs also claimed "that defendants retaliate against Thompson by repeatedly moving him, which affects his ability to pursue legal matters and communicate with his family, and plaintiffs argue it is an attempt to intimidate plaintiffs into notfiling lawsuits against defendants." (Id.)

Delores Thompson and Katie Beglin were dismissed as plaintiffs and the claims asserted by Eric Thompson against several defendants, including the Governor, were also dismissed. (Id. at 12.) Three types of claims were allowed to proceed: (1) claims arising from the application of Disciplinary Rule 34 against Connie Parmeter, Steve Janic, William Ell, and Dave DeGrange (id. pp. 5-6); (2) claims arising from disciplinary proceedings in January 2013 against defendants Paul Gager, Tricia Johnston, and Nick Ludwick (id. pp. 6-8); and (3) retaliation claims against defendants William Sperfslage, Deb Nichols, Dave DeGrange, Nick Ludwick, and William Ell (id. pp. 8-9). Thompson's request for a temporary restraining order was denied and a hearing was set on his request for preliminary injunctive relief. (Id. pp. 10-12.)

Thompson filed a Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 17) on March 6, 2014. In an Order (Doc. No. 22) entered on March 17, 2014, certain claims in the proposed Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 17-1) were dismissed while others were allowed to proceed. One claim dismissed by Judge Pratt was for an alleged breach of immunity agreement described as follows:

Thompson alleges that in 2008, Thompson, ISP Investigator Ron Mower, and Defendant Sperfslage entered into an immunity agreement in which Thompson received immunity during an internal investigation at ISP concerning a sex tape of an officer and an inmate and of the introduction of contraband into the institution. As part of the agreement, Thompson and his mother, Delores Thompson, agreed to cooperate so long as their cooperation was not construed as any admission of guilt, they would not be punished or retaliated against, or held accountable for cooperating, and the cooperation would remain confidential. In addition, Thompson's newborn grandson would be allowed on his regular visitors list.

Thompson alleges that Sperfslage, who is now Deputy Warden at Anamosa State Penitentiary (ASP), allegedly broke that agreement by refusing to allow Delores Thompson on his visitors list at ASP only seven days

...