Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_19-cv-00051/USCOURTS-ared-5_19-cv-00051-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

JASON DEON PALTON,

ADC #095164 PLAINTIFF 

V. CASE NO. 5:19-CV-51-DPM-BD

JAMES GIBSON, et al. DEFENDANTS

 

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

I. Procedure for Filing Objections

This Recommendation has been sent to Chief Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. Any party 

may file written objections if they disagree with the findings or conclusions set out in the 

Recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal 

basis for the objection. To be considered, objections must be received in the office of the 

Court Clerk within 14 days. 

If no objections are filed, Judge Marshall can adopt this Recommendation without 

independently reviewing the record. By not objecting, parties may waive the right to 

appeal questions of fact.

II. Background

Plaintiff Jason Deon Palton, an inmate in the Arkansas Division of Correction 

(ADC), filed this case without the help of a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket 

entry #2) Mr. Palton claims that Defendants Gibson, Shipman, Washington, and Davis

(Defendants) retaliated against him by assigning him to restrictive housing at the Varner 

Super Max Unit and that Defendant Davis retaliated against him by writing false 

Case 5:19-cv-00051-DPM Document 43 Filed 01/31/20 Page 1 of 13
2

disciplinary charges. (#2, #6) Defendants have moved for summary judgment. (#39) Mr. 

Palton has not responded to the Defendants’ motion, and the response deadline has 

passed. 

III. Standard

In a summary judgment, the Court rules in favor of a party before trial. A moving 

party is entitled to summary judgment only if the evidence shows that there is no genuine 

dispute as to any fact that is important to the outcome of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; 

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322B23 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,

477 U.S. 242, 246 (1986). If there is a dispute about important facts, the case cannot be 

decided on summary judgment.

Because Mr. Palton did not respond to the Defendants’ Motion for Summary 

Judgment or to their Statement of Undisputed Facts, the Court will assume that the 

Defendants’ version of the facts is accurate. See Local District Court Rule 56.1. 

IV. Facts

On July 26, 2006, Mr. Palton filed a lawsuit against several ADC officials

alleging, among other things, that Officer Antonio Remley had engaged in sexual 

relations with him while he was incarcerated at the Varner Super Max Unit. Palton v. 

Jackson, E.D. Ark. Case No. 5:06-cv-198-SWW; see also #39-1, p.16. 

On December 13, 2017, Mr. Palton was transferred to the Cummins Unit. (#39-5, 

p.9) He requested protective custody at the Cummins Unit because he is homosexual, and 

Case 5:19-cv-00051-DPM Document 43 Filed 01/31/20 Page 2 of 13
3

he believed that he would “be preyed upon.” (#39-1, pp.21-22) ADC officials did not 

grant his request; instead, he was assigned to restrictive housing at the Cummins Unit on 

January 4, 2018, where he shared a cell with another inmate. (#39-1, pp.21-22; #39-5, 

p.9) At different times, he shared a cell with inmates Phillips and Gray. (#39-1, pp.21-24)

On March 6, 2018, a mental health advisor notified Lieutenant Tasha Griffin (not 

a Defendant) that Mr. Palton had filed a sick call request indicating a possible violation of 

Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA); that is, an indication that inmates Phillips and Gray

had raped Mr. Palton. (#39-6, p.14) Officials opened a PREA investigation, and on 

March 19, 2018, referred the matter to the ADC’s Internal Affairs Division. (#39-6, pp.1-

2, 5, 12) 

Margaret Rogers from Internal Affairs was assigned to investigate. (#39-6, pp.1-2, 

5, 12) On March 29, 2018, Mr. Palton admitted to Ms. Rogers that he had engaged in 

consensual oral sex and sexual intercourse with inmate Phillips. (#39-6, pp.1-2, 5) He 

also admitted to Ms. Rogers that he had engaged in oral sex with inmate Gray. He further 

stated that inmate Gray had not forced him to engage in sexual conduct. (#39-6, pp.1-2, 

5) At the conclusion of her investigation, Ms. Rogers recommended that Mr. Palton be 

housed in a single-person cell for his protection and for the protection of others. (#39-6, 

p.4)

Lieutenant Thomas (not a Defendant) reviewed Ms. Rogers’s internal affairs

report and concluded that Mr. Palton, along with inmates Phillips and Gray, had violated 

Case 5:19-cv-00051-DPM Document 43 Filed 01/31/20 Page 3 of 13
4

the ADC rule prohibiting consensual sex between inmates. (#39-6, p.9) She charged all 

three inmates with engaging in sexual activity with another consenting individual; 

engaging in non-abusive sexual activity with another person; failing to obey orders; 

refusing a direct verbal order; and lying to a staff member, whether by omission or by 

providing false information. (#39-6, p.10)

On April 13, 2018, Mr. Palton attended a disciplinary hearing on the charges.

(#39-3, pp.1-2) Hearing officer Justine Minor (not a Defendant) found Mr. Palton guilty 

of engaging in sexual activity; engaging in non-abusive sexual activity with another 

person; and lying to a staff member. As punishment, Mr. Palton received a 30-day 

assignment in punitive isolation, class reduction, and a 60-day restriction from 

commissary, phone, and visitation privileges. (#39-3, pp.1-2) 

Director Wendy Kelley (not a Defendant) upheld the guilty verdicts for engaging 

in sexual activity with a consenting person and lying to a staff member, but she found Mr. 

Palton not guilty of non-abusive sexual activity with another because that charge 

overlapped the charge of engaging in sexual activity with a consenting person. (#39-6, 

p.13) 

On April 23, 2018, Mr. Palton was transferred from the Cummins Unit back to the 

Varner Super Max Unit. (#39-5, p.7) On April 26, 2018, he was assigned to restrictive 

housing at Varner Super Max. (#39-5, p.7) According to the ADC’s policy on restrictive 

housing, the classification committee may place an inmate in restrictive housing if his or 

Case 5:19-cv-00051-DPM Document 43 Filed 01/31/20 Page 4 of 13
5

her presence in the general population would pose a threat to the safe and secure 

operations of the facility. (#39-2, p.1)

On May 2, 2018, the classification review committee reviewed Mr. Palton’s 

restrictive housing assignment and a plan for his release to general population. (#39-4, 

p.1) Under the plan, before release from restrictive housing, Mr. Palton would have to 

reach class II status or higher; complete the sanctions imposed by the disciplinary court; 

remain disciplinary-free for one year; and complete a step-down program. (#39-4, p.1)

The release plan included this notation: “Engaging in sexual activity at Cummins Unit”—

presumably to explain why Mr. Palton was initially assigned to restrictive housing at 

Varner Super Max. (#39-4, p.1)

On June 12, 2018, Defendant Gibson reviewed Mr. Palton’s restrictive-housing 

status to consider Mr. Palton’s request to be assigned to the step-down program.

1 (#39-4, 

p.3) Defendant Gibson advised Mr. Palton that he would have to reach class IC status 

before he would be eligible for the step-down program. (#39-4, p.3)

On July 9, 2018, Mr. Palton filed a second lawsuit against several ADC officials, 

raising claims related to the March 2018 sexual activity at the Cummins Unit. Palton v. 

Straughn, E.D. Ark. Case No. 5:18-cv-179-BSM; see also #39-1, p.64. 

 1 The step-down program prepares an inmate for transition from restrictive housing to 

general population or the community. (#39-2, p.2)

Case 5:19-cv-00051-DPM Document 43 Filed 01/31/20 Page 5 of 13
6

On July 11, 2018, the classification committee promoted Mr. Palton to class III

(#39-4, p.4; #39-5, p.6) On August 15, 2018, he was promoted to a class II. (#39-4, p.5; 

#39-5, p.6) But, a week later, Sergeant Mary Lloyd (not a Defendant) issued Mr. Palton a 

disciplinary for using abusive language and refusing a direct order. (#39-3, p.4) On the 

same day, mental health advisor Tiffany Williams (not a Defendant) also issued Mr. 

Palton a major disciplinary for using abusive language and profanity towards her. (#39-3, 

pp.7-9) 

Mr. Palton attended a hearing on those disciplinaries on August 28, 2019. He was 

found guilty of failing to obey an order; insolence to staff member; and creating an 

unnecessary noise. As a result of these convictions, Mr. Palton received a 45-day 

restriction on commissary, visits, and phone privileges; and he was reduced to class IV

status. (#39-3, pp.4-5, 7-9)

On September 19, 2018, Mr. Palton attended a classification hearing as a class IV 

inmate with all the Defendants in attendance. (#39-1, p.40; #39-4, p.6) The committee 

voted unanimously for Mr. Palton to remain in restrictive housing.(#39-4, p.6) Later that 

day, Defendant Davis issued Mr. Palton a major disciplinary charge. (#39-3, pp.10-12) In 

that disciplinary, she wrote: 

On September 19, 2018, at approximately 10:55AM, I Cpl. R. Davis observed 

Inmate Jason Palton #095164 (who’s housed in Cellblock 2 Cell #206 Zone 2) 

addressed [sic] during his Warden Review with Warden Gibson and the committee 

that he was tired of being in the Varner Super Max and wanted to go to 

population. Warden Gibson advised that he’s not able to be in Varner General 

Population due to his prior information from eOMIS. Then Inmate Palton yelled, 

Case 5:19-cv-00051-DPM Document 43 Filed 01/31/20 Page 6 of 13
7

“Is y’all gone transfer me then because I’m tired of being locked down back here!” 

Warden Gibson then stated, “You will be transferred when bed space is available 

at a receiving unit.” Inmate Palton then became confrontational and irritated and 

stated, “I already had you in court once. I don’t mind doing it again.” Inmate 

Palton #095164 was then given a direct order to go back to his cell with his escort 

team but Inmate Palton stood and yelled, “I’m going to have your trifling ass in 

court. You should know I don’t mind doing lawsuits on your ass!” Inmate Palton 

was then escorted back to his cell by his escort team. Due to Inmate Palton 

#095164 going against ADC rule and regulations, I Cpl. R. Davis charge him with 

rule violations 02-17, 02-20, 11-1, 12-3, and 12-4. Pending DCR.

(#39-3, p.10) Defendant Davis charged Mr. Palton with five code violations: creating 

unnecessary noise; unauthorized contacts with the public; insolence to a staff member;

failure to obey order of staff; and refusing a direct verbal order. (#39-3, p.10) Mr. Palton 

asserts that Defendant Davis made up these disciplinary charges. (#39-1, p.41)

On September 28, 2018, Mr. Palton attended a disciplinary hearing on the charges 

and denied using profanity. (#39-3, pp.11-12) Hearing officer, Justine Minor, found him 

guilty of creating unnecessary noise and insolence to a staff member. (#39-3, pp.11-12) 

Ms. Minor found him not guilty of unauthorized contacts with the public; failure to obey 

order to staff; and refusing a direct order. (#39-3, pp.11-12) On appeal, Director Kelley 

affirmed the disciplinary convictions for creating unnecessary noise and insolence to a

staff member. (#39-1, pp.45-46; #39-3, p.11-12) However, she reversed the other 

disciplinary convictions. (#39-1, pp.45-46; #39-3, p.11-12) 

On November 28, 2018, Mr. Palton was promoted from class IV status to class III

status. (#39-5, p.6) On December 27, 2018, he was promoted to class IC status. (#39-6, 

p.4) On January 31, 2019, Mr. Palton filed this lawsuit claiming that Defendants 

Case 5:19-cv-00051-DPM Document 43 Filed 01/31/20 Page 7 of 13
8

retaliated against him for exercising his federally protected right to file grievances and 

lawsuits. (#2)

V. Official Capacity Claims

A civil litigant cannot recover money damages from state actors sued in their 

official capacities. Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989). 

Accordingly, any claim for money damages against the Defendants in their official 

capacities must be dismissed.

VI. Individual Capacity Claims

To succeed on a retaliation claim, Mr. Palton must establish that he engaged in 

constitutionally protected activity; that defendants took adverse action against him that 

would chill a person of ordinary firmness from engaging in that activity; and that 

retaliation was the actual motivating factor for the adverse action. Lewis v. Jacks, 486 

F.3d 1025, 1029 (8th Cir. 2007); Revels v. Vincenz, 382 F.3d 870, 876 (8th Cir. 2004); 

Sisneros v. Nix, 95 F.3d 749,752 (8th Cir. 1996).

Mr. Palton did engage in protected activity, i.e., filing grievances and lawsuits. 

And, Defendants at the Varner Super Max Unit took adverse actions, i.e., writing 

disciplinary charges, assigning him to restrictive housing, and suspending privileges. Mr. 

Palton’s retaliation claims fail, however, because he cannot show that retaliation was the

motivation for the punishment that was imposed. 

Case 5:19-cv-00051-DPM Document 43 Filed 01/31/20 Page 8 of 13
9

Under settled law, retaliation must have been the “actual motivating factor” for a 

defendant’s adverse action toward an inmate. In other words, the inmate must show that 

the defendants would not have taken adverse actions against him, “but for a retaliatory 

motive.” Lewis, 486 F.3d at 1029; Haynes v. Stephenson, 588 F.3d 1152, 1156 (8th Cir. 

2009). Mr. Palton cannot prevail if the Defendants had legitimate reasons for the actions

they took against him, even if there might also have been a retaliatory motive. Id.; 

Ponchik v. Bogan, 929 F.3d 419, 420 (8th Cir. 1991) (rejecting a retaliation claim where 

there were legitimate reasons for the inmate’s transfer, even though retaliation was also a 

factor). 

A. Restrictive Housing Assignment

According to Mr. Palton, he was placed in restrictive housing at the Varner Super 

Max Unit in retaliation for filing two previous lawsuits against prison staff, for reporting 

that inmates sexually assaulted him, and for filing grievances. (#2, #6) Based on the 

undisputed facts in the record, there were legitimate reasons for Mr. Palton’s placement 

in restrictive housing.

Mr. Palton was initially placed in restrictive housing at the Cummins Unit on 

January 4, 2018. None of the Defendants in this case were involved in that decision. After 

Ms. Rogers at the internal affairs office investigated incidents of sexual contact between 

Mr. Palton and his cellmates, she recommended that Mr. Palton be assigned to a singleman cell—both for his protection and for the safety of others. Following Ms. Rogers’s 

Case 5:19-cv-00051-DPM Document 43 Filed 01/31/20 Page 9 of 13
10

report, correction officers at Cummins issued disciplinaries to Mr. Palton (and his 

cellmates) and found him guilty of engaging in prohibited sexual conduct. There is no 

issue about the fairness of the hearing at Cummins.

Mr. Palton claims that Defendants began retaliating against him as soon as he 

arrived at the Varner Super Max Unit on April 23, 2018, by assigning him to restrictive 

housing. The decision to place Mr. Palton in restrictive housing upon his arrival at the 

Varner Super Max Unit, however, flowed from his disciplinary convictions at the

Cummins Unit and his history of engaging in prohibited sexual activity. The 

classification committee had sufficient reason to assign Mr. Palton to restrictive housing

when he arrived at the Super Max. 

Super Max officials developed a plan for Mr. Palton’s release from restrictive 

housing, but his release to general population was repeatedly delayed by his failure to

meet the goals set out in the plan. When Defendant Gibson reviewed Mr. Palton’s

housing status, after Mr. Palton had expressed a desire to be placed in the step-down 

program, Defendant Gibson reminded him that he first had to obtain IC class status. 

Mr. Palton was promoted to class III, and then to class II status, but his class was 

reduced after he received disciplinaries from Sergeant Lloyd and Ms. Williams, neither of 

whom are Defendants. He was found guilty of both charges, which resulted in his class 

reduction. Mr. Palton received yet another disciplinary from Defendant Davis. He was 

convicted of that charge as well and, as a result, remained at class IV. Mr. Palton was 

Case 5:19-cv-00051-DPM Document 43 Filed 01/31/20 Page 10 of 13
11

promoted to class III, and on December 27, 2018, he finally achieved class IC status. He

filed this lawsuit on January 31, 2019. 

Based on these facts, Mr. Palton cannot prove that his assignment to restrictive 

housing was the result of Defendants’ retaliatory motives. To the contrary, the undisputed 

evidence demonstrates that there was a plan for Mr. Palton’s release from restrictive 

housing; Defendants regularly reviewed his restrictive-housing placement; and his release 

to general population was delayed due to his own misbehavior. Some of Mr. Palton’s 

disciplinary charges were issued by Defendants in this case; other were not. 

B. Disciplinary by Davis

Two of the disciplinary charges that Defendant Davis issued (creating unnecessary 

noise and insolence to staff member) cannot form the basis of a retaliation claim. A

disciplinary conviction that is supported by some evidence “essentially checkmates” a 

retaliation claim. Hartsfield, 511 F.3d 826, 831 (8th Cir. 2008); Goff v. Burton, 7 F.3d 

734, 738 (8th Cir. 1993) “[A] report from a correctional officer, even if disputed by the 

inmate and supported by no other evidence, legally suffices as some evidence upon which 

to base a prison disciplinary violation, if the violation is found by an impartial decision 

maker.” Hartsfield v. Nichols, 511 F.3d at 831; Henderson v. Baird, 29 F.3d 464, 469 

(8th Cir. 1994). This rule holds true even if the report is written by the officer who is 

alleged to have engaged in the retaliatory conduct. Hartsfield, 511 F.3d at 831. Mr. 

Case 5:19-cv-00051-DPM Document 43 Filed 01/31/20 Page 11 of 13
12

Palton was convicted by an impartial hearing officer; thus, he has no retaliation claim 

based on the unnecessary noise and insolence charges that Defendant Davis issued. 

Defendant Davis issued other charges that a hearing officer did not sustain. 

Defendants argue that “it is of no consequence that Palton’s disciplinary was modified.” 

The fact that Mr. Palton was not convicted on three charges that Defendant Davis issued

leaves a question as to whether Defendant Davis charged Mr. Palton with authorized 

contact with the public, failure to obey order of staff, and refusing a direct verbal order in 

retaliation for exercising constitutionally protected rights.

A review of the record shows, however, that the acquitted charges cannot support 

Mr. Palton’s retaliation claims against Defendant Davis. Even though Mr. Palton was not 

convicted on three charges, there is no evidence to indicate that Defendant Davis wrote 

those disciplinaries in retaliation for Mr. Palton’s filing other lawsuits against prison 

staff, reporting sexual assaults, or filing grievances. Defendant Davis was not involved in 

either of Mr. Palton’s two previous lawsuits. In fact, Mr. Palton admitted in his 

deposition that he did not believe Defendant Davis retaliated against him for bringing the 

2006 lawsuit. (#39-1, p.33) Mr. Palton’s second lawsuit arose from events at the 

Cummins Unit, and Defendant Davis has no perceivable connection to the claims or 

defendants in that lawsuit. In sum, there is simply no evidence to suggest that Defendant 

Davis retaliated against Mr. Palton—or that he had any reason to retaliate against him.

See Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781,784 (8th Cir. 1999); Atkinson v. Bohn, 91 F.3d 

Case 5:19-cv-00051-DPM Document 43 Filed 01/31/20 Page 12 of 13
13

1127, 1129 (8th Cir. 1996) (mere speculative or conclusory allegations are insufficient to 

establish a retaliation claim.).

VII. Conclusion

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (#39) should be GRANTED, and Mr. 

Palton’s claims should be DISMISSED, with prejudice.

DATED this 31st day of January, 2020.

___________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:19-cv-00051-DPM Document 43 Filed 01/31/20 Page 13 of 13