United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
JANE MAGNUS-STINSON, CHIEF JUDGE.
reasons explained in this Entry, the motion for summary
judgment filed by defendant Faith Reeves, dkt. , is
Monwell Douglas was at all times relevant to this action
incarcerated at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
(“Wabash Valley”). After the Court screened the
amended complaint, the only remaining defendant is Casework
Manager Faith Reeves. See Screening Entry dkt. 38.
The Screening Entry described Mr. Douglas' claim as
The plaintiff alleges that Casework Manager Reeves has denied
him “entitlements.” He alleges that Ms. Reeves
refused to hire him for high paying jobs for which he was
qualified. He filed grievances complaining about Ms.
Reeves' actions. The plaintiff alleges that as a result
of a disciplinary charge brought against him, he was found
guilty and lost his housing assignment, lost his job, credit
class, earned credit time, housing position, and future job
positioning. The finding of guilt was later reversed, so when
he was returned to his housing unit he made requests of Ms.
Reeves which she denied. The plaintiff then filed
classification appeals which were granted. He alleges that
Ms. Reeves “took offence [sic] to my reversal and she
began a chain of retaliatory acts that are all in connection
to the initial false imprisonment sanction.” [Dkt. 37,
p. 14.]. After his appeal was granted, he requested that Ms.
Reeves grant him his previous job or a high level position,
his previous cell, full payment for the 45 days he was housed
in a different unit, and a work benefit grade payment for
every day he was not given a replacement position. Ms. Reeves
granted him $15.00 and a remedial position at the same pay.
The plaintiff appealed this decision to the classification
director and the refusal to reclassify him to a different
status was reversed. To the extent the plaintiff alleges that
Ms. Reeves refused to give him a better job and denied him
other benefits because of his complaints against her, this
claim of retaliation under the First Amendment shall
Dkt. 38 at 6.
Reeves seeks resolution of Mr. Douglas' claim of
retaliation through the entry of summary judgment. Dkt. 99.
Mr. Douglas has opposed the motion, dkts. 112-116, Ms. Reeves
replied, dkts. 117-118, and Mr. Douglas filed a surreply,
Summary Judgment Standard
purpose of summary judgment is to “pierce the pleadings
and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a
genuine need for trial.” Matsushita Electric
Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587
(1986). Summary judgment is appropriate when the movant shows
that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and
that 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). To survive a motion for summary judgment, the
non-moving party must set forth specific, admissible evidence
showing that there is a material issue for trial. Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The Court
views the record in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party and draws all reasonable inferences in that
party's favor. Darst v. Interstate Brands Corp.,
512 F.3d 903, 907 (7th Cir. 2008). It cannot weigh evidence
or make credibility determinations on summary judgment
because those tasks are left to the fact-finder.
O'Leary v. Accretive Health, Inc., 657 F.3d 625,
630 (7th Cir. 2011).
dispute about a material fact is genuine only “if the
evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). If no
reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party, then
there is no “genuine” dispute. Scott v.
Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007).
following statement of facts was evaluated pursuant to the
standards set forth above. That is, this statement of facts
is not necessarily objectively true, but as the summary
judgment standard requires, the undisputed facts and the
disputed evidence are presented in the light reasonably most
favorable to Mr. Douglas as the non-moving party with respect
to the motion for summary judgment. See Reeves v.
Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150
Reeves was the case worker for the offenders on the right
wing of P Unit at Wabash Valley at all times relevant to the
claims asserted by Mr. Douglas. P Unit is divided into a
right wing and a left wing. As the case worker for the right
wing of P Unit, Ms. Reeves is responsible for the daily
affairs of approximately 100 offenders. Her duties ...