Williams v. Silvey

• Decision Date: 30 June 2014
• Docket Number: Case No. 4:09CV211NCC
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
• Parties: ERNEST CORNELIUS WILLIAMS and DORRIS ELLIS WILLIAMS, Plaintiffs, v. JUDITH SILVEY, et al., Defendants.

ERNEST CORNELIUS WILLIAMSand DORRIS ELLIS WILLIAMS, Plaintiffs, v. JUDITH SILVEY, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 4:09CV211NCC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

Dated: June 30, 2014

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Before the court is the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Correctional Officer Judith Silvey (CO Silvey), Sergeant Sarah Whitener (Sergeant Whitener), Potosi Correctional Center Warden Donald "Don" Roper (Warden Roper), and Deputy Warden Cindy Griffith (Deputy Warden Griffith). (Doc. 152). The matter is fully briefed and ready for disposition. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Doc. 137).

STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The court may grant a motion for summary judgment "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). See also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The substantive law determines which facts are critical and which are irrelevant. Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome will properly preclude summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Summary judgment is not proper if the evidenceis such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id. See also Fenny v. Dakota, Minn. & E.R.R. Co., 327 F.3d 707, 711 (8th Cir. 2003) (holding that an issue is genuine "if the evidence is sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the non-moving party").

A moving party always bears the burden of informing the court of the basis of its motion. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. Once the moving party discharges this burden, the nonmoving party must set forth specific facts demonstrating that there is a dispute as to a genuine issue of material fact, not the "mere existence of some alleged factual dispute." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247. The nonmoving party may not rest upon mere allegations or denials of his pleading. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. "Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary" will not preclude summary judgment. Id. at 248.

Where the non-moving party "fails to properly address another party's assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the court may . . . consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion . . . [or] grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials - including the facts considered undisputed - show that the movant is entitled to it . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).

In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in its favor. Id. at 255; Raschick v. Prudent Supply, Inc., 830 F.2d 1497, 1499 (8th Cir. 1987). The court's function is not to weigh the evidence, but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. However, "[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [nonmoving party's] position will be insufficient." Id. at 252. With these principles in mind, the court turns to an analysis of Defendants' Motion.

BACKGROUND and UNDISPUTED FACTS¹

At all relevant times, Plaintiff Ernest C. Williams (Mr. Williams) was an inmate in the custody of Missouri Department of Corrections (the DOC); Plaintiff Dorris Ellis Williams (Mrs. Williams) was the wife of Mr. Williams; and CO Silvey, Sergeant Whitener, Warden Roper, and Deputy Warden Griffith (jointly, Defendants) were employed by the DOC at the Potosi Correctional Center (PCC).

In their First Amended Complaint, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Mr. and Mrs. Williams (jointly, Plaintiffs) allege that Defendants retaliated against them for exercising their First Amendment right to petition the government. In support of their claims, Plaintiffs state:

(a) Prior to January 19, 2008 and after, defendant Silvey routinely harassed, belittled, used racial epithets and generally made the Plaintiffs' visits with each other in the PCC visiting room uncomfortable and stressful.

(b) During Plaintiffs' visits, CO Silvey threatened plaintiffs with the termination of their visiting privileges and disciplinary action because Plaintiffs filed grievances and made complaints to the PCC administration regarding the visiting room.

(c) On January 19, 2008, after Plaintiffs had completed their visit in the PCC visiting room, defendants CO Silvey and Sergeant Whitener issued a false conduct violation against Mr. Williams and Mrs. Williams alleging that they had violated a number of institutional rules during their visit.

(d) CO Silvey and Sergeant Whitener issued the false conduct violation in retaliation for Plaintiffs' filing grievances and complaints regarding the PCC visiting room.

(e) On May 18, 2008, during Mrs. Williams' visit at PCC, Mr. Williams asked CO Silvey whether he could use the vending machines or microwave because Mrs. Williams had severe knee or leg pain. CO Silvey rejected Mr. Williams' request.

(f) The fact that Mrs. Williams had knee replacement surgery was a medically documented fact as she was not allowed to visit Mr. Williams until it was verified because of the steel in her left knee.

(g) PCC policy allows for inmates to use the vending machine and microwave in the visiting room if their visitor has a medically documented disability.

(h) CO Silvey's insistence that Mrs. Williams use the vending machines, etc. was in retaliation for Plaintiffs filing grievances and complaints regarding the visiting room.

(i) On May 18, 2008, while Plaintiffs were playing a card game in the visiting room, CO Silvey further retaliated against them for filing grievances and complaints by threatening to issue Mr. Williams a conduct violation for insulting behavior. Subsequently, CO Silvey forced Mr. Williams to sign the "warning logbook."

(j) On May 22, 2008, Mr. Williams sent Warden Roper a letter notifying him of CO Silvey's unconstitutional actions. Although Warden Roper was informed that there was an ongoing violation of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights he took no action and allowed these violations to continue. Warden Roper subsequently forwarded the letter to Deputy Warden Griffith. Warden Roper was deliberately indifferent to the ongoing retaliation that Plaintiffs were suffering.

(k) Deputy Warden Griffith, even though on notice of CO Silvey's violation of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights, also took no action despite the claim that CO Silvey was under her authority and control. Similarly, Deputy Warden Griffith was deliberately indifferent to the ongoing retaliation that Plaintiffs were suffering.

(Doc. 100 at 3-5).

As clarified by the parties' pleadings relevant to the pending Motion, Plaintiffs assert CO Silvey harassed them by "belittling" them, "using racial epithets," and "making their visits uncomfortable," as evidenced by the following specific conduct:

a. Issuing Mr. Williams a conduct warning for sharing a coffee bag;

b. Requiring Mr. Williams to sign a warning log for playing a card game;

c. Prohibiting Mr. Williams from using the PCC's visiting room's vending machine or microwave;

d. Prohibiting Plaintiffs from sitting where they chose in the PCC's visiting room;

e. Instructing officers in administrative segregation to retaliate against Mr. Williams, including issuing false conduct violations against him;f. Restricting the type of earrings worn by Mrs. Williams;

g. Restricting the barrettes worn by Mr. and Mrs. Williams' grandchildren;

h. Restricting the wigs worn by Mrs. Williams;

i. Threatening Mr. and Mrs. Williams' visiting privileges; and

j. CO Silvey's belittling Plaintiffs, using racial epithets, and making their visits uncomfortable.

(Doc. 153.1 Defendant's Statement of Untroverted Material Facts, hereafter (D.S.U.M.F.) ¶ 8; Doc. 163 Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Statement of Uncontroverted Material Facts, hereafter ("Pls. Ans.") ¶ 8).

Defendants deny that they engaged in the above conduct and that by doing so they deprived Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights; and Defendants deny that Plaintiffs suffered emotional distress, mental anguish, and humiliation as a result of Defendants' conduct. Plaintiffs sue Defendants in their individual and official capacities, and seek injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief which the court deems proper. (Doc. 100, ¶ 10, p. 6).

A. Mr. Williams' Testimony

Mr. Williams testified in his deposition that he had been incarcerated since at least 1989, and that, most recently, he had been at the PCC since 2000. (Doc. 153-2 at 9). When asked about CO Silvey's allegedly objectionable conduct, Mr. Williams testified that, when in the visiting room at PCC, CO Silvey told his grandchildren that they were not allowed to wear barrettes in their hair, despite the fact that other children were allowed to wear barrettes; CO Silvey would interrupt card games he and Mrs. Williams played in the visiting room, asked them questions about the cards and would have other guards come to their table and interrupt their visits; and Mr. Williams felt the guards were continually watching him and his wife, as a resultof CO Silvey's instructions that they do so. Mr. Williams testified that he first filed a grievance about CO Silvey's conduct in the visiting room concerning events on January 19, 2008, when he received a conduct violation for sharing a cup of coffee with Mrs. Williams; in fact, they shared coffee bags, not a cup of coffee. (Doc. 153-2 at 9-23). It is undisputed that Mr. Williams appealed the conduct violation he received for sharing coffee, and it was ordered that the violation be dismissed and expunged. (Doc. 153-10).

Mr. Williams further testified that CO Silvey picked on black people in the visiting room; he never heard CO Silvey make a racial comment; CO Silvey "grouped together" all prisoners and "talked down to all of the...