United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
WALTON PRATT, JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on a Motion for Summary Judgment
filed by the Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 56 (Filing No. 44). The parties to this civil
rights action are pro se Plaintiff Robert Holleman
(“Holleman”), an Indiana prisoner, and
Defendants, Dushan Zatecky (“Zatecky”),
Superintendent; Tom Francum (“Francum”), Internal
Affairs Officer; Andrew Cole (“Cole”), Assistant
Superintendent; Duane Alsip (“Alsip”),
Superintendent of Re-entry; and Keri Johnson
(“Johnson”), Classification Specialist. The
Defendants are employees of the Indiana Department of
Correction (“IDOC”) at the Pendleton Correctional
Facility (“Pendleton). Holleman filed this action
alleging that the Defendants violated his federally secured
rights through their retaliation against him and their denial
of his right to due process. Other claims were dismissed as
legally insufficient in Holleman v. Zatecky, 2015 WL
4275804 (S.D. Ind. July 14, 2015). Holleman's remaining
claim is that the Defendants retaliated against him. He seeks
damages and equitable relief.
two of the Defendants, Andrew Cole and Duane Alsip, seek
resolution of Holleman's claim through the entry of
summary judgment. Holleman has responded.
reasons explained in this Entry, the Motion for Summary
Judgment must be granted as to Defendants
Cole and Alsip.
noted, Holleman is an Indiana state prisoner serving a term
of imprisonment. His original complaint was dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Holleman v.
Gilley, 2015 WL 1403144 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 26, 2015). The
dismissal of the complaint, however, did not lead to the
dismissal of the action, and the operative pleading at this
point is the Supplemental Complaint Under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, filed by Holleman on September 18, 2014. (Filing No.
20.) The Supplemental Complaint was screened as required by
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Holleman v. Zatecky, 2015
WL 4275804 (S.D. Ind. July 14, 2015). As a result of that
action, all claims except one were dismissed as legally
surviving claim at issue here is the claim of retaliation,
which is asserted against the Defendants in their individual
capacities insofar as damages are sought, and against the
Defendants in their official capacities insofar as equitable
relief is sought. Defendants Cole and Alsip seek resolution
of Holleman's claim through the entry of summary
judgment. The other Defendants originally joined in that
motion but have now withdrawn from it and that motion was
denied as moot as to those other Defendants on September 14,
2016. (See Filing No. 85.)
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
judgment procedure is properly regarded not as a disfavored
procedural shortcut, but rather as an integral part of the
Federal Rules as a whole, which are designed ‘to secure
the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every
action.'” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 327 (1986) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 1).
court shall grant 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). A “material fact” is one that
“might affect the outcome of the suit.”
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
(1986). A dispute over “material fact” is
“genuine” if “the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving
[A] party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial
responsibility of informing the district court of the basis
for its motion, and identifying those portions of ‘the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,
' which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine
issue of material fact.
Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323.
plaintiff may not defeat the defendant's properly
supported motion for summary judgment without offering any
significant probative evidence tending to support the
complaint.” Tri-Gen Inc. v. Int'l Union of
Operating Engineers, Local 150, AFL-CIO, 433 F.3d 1024,
1038 (7th Cir. 2006). The key inquiry is whether admissible
evidence exists to support a plaintiff's claims, not the
weight or credibility of that evidence, both of which are
assessments reserved to the trier of fact. See Schacht v.
Wis. Dep't of Corrections, 175 F.3d 497, 504 (7th
Cir. 1999). In viewing the facts presented on a motion for
summary judgment, a court must construe all facts in a light
most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all
legitimate inferences in favor of that party. NLFC, Inc.
v. Devcom Mid-Am., Inc., 45 F.3d 231, 234 (7th Cir.
1995); Doe v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 42 F.3d
439, 443 (7th Cir. 1994).
applicable substantive law will dictate which facts are
material.” National Soffit & Escutcheons, Inc.,
v. Superior Systems, Inc.,98 F.3d 262, 265 (7th ...