# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 4- 29 32

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Sam ue l Lewi s Taylor

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Unk no wn Ba il ey , Cas ewo rk er

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t

Unk no wn Bo tk in s, Li br ari an

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

Ci nd y Griff it h, Fu nc ti on Uni t M an ag er; Unk no wn Sp oo , Cor rect io na l Offi cer I ; Unk no wn M ezo , Cor rect io na l Offi cer I; Unk no wn Ri ch , Cor rect io na l Offi cer I I; Unk no wn Gl or e, Co rrec ti on al Offic er I; Unk no wn Ca in , Cor rect io na l Offi cer I ; Unk no wn Ho ll y , Nurs e/ CMS ; Un kn own Cas si e, Nur se /C MS

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t s

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 3, 2 01 5 Fil ed : J ul y

9, 2 01 5 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __Befo re WOL LMAN an d GRUENDER, Ci rcu it Ju dg es , and DOTY, Dis tri ct 1
Ju dg e.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

Sam ue l Tay lo r fil ed a 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 s u i t ag ai ns t Gwenn Bo tk in al le gi ng th at Bo tk in ret al ia te d ag ai ns t Tay lo r f o r e x e r ci si ng hi s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht to fil e a la wsu it

. Bo tk in m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, whi ch th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed

. 2

Bo tk in ap pe al s th is de te rm in at io n on th e gr ou nd th at sh e is en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed
im m un it y

. W e affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s le ga l co nc lu si on th at Bo tk in was no t en ti tl ed

to qu al ifi ed im

m un it y an d di sm is s th e r e main de r of Bo tk in ’s ap pe al fo r la ck of juri sd ic ti on

.

Tay lo r, an in m at e in th e cu st od y of th e Mi ss o u r i D e pa rtment of Co rrec ti on s (“ MDOC”)

, br ou gh t su it u nd er 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 ag ai ns t nu m ero us MDOC

e mplo y ees , in cl ud in g Bo tk in

. The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d Tay lo r’s cl ai m s ag a i n s t
Bo tk in an d an ot he r de fen da nt as fri vo lo us , se e 28 U.S.C. § 19 15 (e)( 2) (B), an d
di sm is se d th e rem ai ni ng de fen da nt s fr om th e la wsu it for im

pr op er joi nd er, se e Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 20 (a)( 2)

. Tay lo r ap pe al ed

. W e rev ers ed th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sm is sa l of Tay lo r’s ret al ia ti on c l a i m ag ai ns t Bo tk in bu t ot he rwis e affi rm ed th e di st ric t co ur t’s

or de r. Ta yl or v. Bai le

y , 49 4 F. App ’x 67 4, 67 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (u np u b l is he d pe r

cu ria m ). W e ex pl ai ne d th at Tay lo r “ su ffi ci en tl y st at ed a no nf riv ol ou s Fi rs t
Am en dm en t r e ta li at io n cl ai m ag ai ns t Bo tk in []” be cau se Tay lo r al le ge d th at Bo tk in

The Hon or ab le Dav id S. Dot y , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct of 1 Mi nn es ot a, si tt in g b y

de si gn at io n.

The Hon or ab le Ch arl es A. Sh aw, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 2 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-ha d hi m pl aced in ad m in is tra ti ve se gr eg at io n si x da y s aft er sh e co nf ro nt ed hi m ab ou t

a p en di ng laws ui t ag ai ns t M DOC em pl oyees. Id

. at 67 5.

Afte r rem an d, th e fo ll o win g ev id en ce was el ic it ed du rin g di sc ov ery. Tay lo r

was a pr is on la w-li br ary cl erk in Ja nu ary 20 11 whe n he fil ed a di ffer en t la wsu it

ag ai ns t se ve ral MDOC em pl oyees. Bo tk i n, a li br ari an em pl oyed at th e pr is on ,

co nf ro nt ed Tay lo r ab ou t th e la wsu it

. Tay lo r to ld Bo tk in th at sh e was no t na m ed in
th e la wsu it an d at te m

pt ed to sh ow he r a web pa ge id en ti fy in g th e act ua l de fen da nt s.
B o t k in was vi si bl y up se t an d walk ed away. Si x da y s la te r, Tay lo r was p l a c e d i n ad m in is tra ti ve se gr eg at io n be cau se Bo tk in rep or te d th at Tay lo r ei th er ha d fo ug ht or

was go in g to fig ht an ot he r pr is o n e r. Tay lo r rem ai ne d in se gr eg at io n fo r si xt y da y s du rin g whi ch he was no t pe rm it te d t o pa rti ci pa te in recr eat io n. Pri so n of fic ia ls

co nd uc te d an in ve st ig at io n th at fo un d Tay lo r “ no t gu il ty” of th e al le ge d m is co nd uc t. Tay lo r al so cl ai m s th at , aft er he was rel eas ed fro m se gr eg at io n, he was no t pe rm it te d

to ret ur n to hi s job as a la w-li br ary cl erk an d in st e a d was as si gn ed to wor k in th e
pr is on ’s ki tc he n. Tay lo r cl ai m s th at hi s wor k in th e ki tc he n cau se d hi m to su ffer gr eat ph y si cal st res s t ha t i nc lu de d l owe r ba ck pa in

.

Bo tk in m ov ed fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Bo tk in ’s

su m m ary-j ud gm en t m ot io n, ho ld in g th at ge nu in e is su es of m at eri al fact rem ai ne d as

to whe th er Bo tk in ret al ia te d ag ai ns t Tay lo r in vi ol at io n of th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t.
Bo tk in ap pe al s t hi s d eci si on , arg ui ng th at sh e is en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y

.

Thi s co ur t ha s juri sd ic ti on ov er an in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al fro m th e de n i al of

qu al ifi ed im m

un it y to th e ex te nt th at it tu rn s on a le ga l qu es ti on

. Cr ai gh ea d v. Lee
, 39 9 F.3 d 95 4, 96 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). Bu t “ [f]actu al an d ev id en ti ary de te rm in at io ns are

no t ap pe al ab le a t t h is st ag e.” Ca pp s v. Ols on , 78 0 F.3 d 87 9, 88 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ). Tay lo r cl ai m s th at Bo tk in m ad e a fal se rep or t agai ns t hi m in ret al ia ti on fo r Tay lo r’s

su it ag ai ns t MDOC em

pl oyees. We r ev ie w “ th e de ni al of su m m ary jud gm en t de

no vo , co ns tru in g th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e no nm ov in g pa rty an d

-3

-dr awin g al l reas on ab le in fere nc es in th e no nm ov in g pa rty’ s fav or .” Id

. at 88 3. “ An

of fic ia l is ent it le d to su m

m ary jud gm en t ba se d on qu al ifi ed im m un it y un le ss (1 ) th e

ev id en ce, vi e w ed in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e no nm ov in g pa rty, es ta bl is he s a

v i o l a t io n of a fed eral co ns ti tu ti on al or st at ut or y rig ht

, an d (2 ) th e rig ht was cl e a r l y

es ta bl is he d a t t he ti m e o f th e v io la ti on .” Id

. at 88 4.

The Fi rs t Am en dm en t pr ot ec t s a p e rs on ’s rig ht to fil e a la wsu it

. Bea ul ie u v. Lu de man , 69 0 F.3 d 10 17
, 10 25 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at pr is on of fic ia ls m ay

no t re ta li at e ag ai ns t a pri so ne r who ex erci se s hi s Firs t Am en dm en t rig ht to su e). In

or de r to es ta bl is h a 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 ret al ia ti on cl ai m un de r t h e F i rs t Am en dm en t,

“ a pl ai nt iff m

us t al le ge (1 ) th at he en ga ge d in a pr ot ect ed act iv it y , (2 ) th at th e de fen da nt s res po nd ed wit h ad ve rs e act io n th at wou ld ch il l a pe rs on of o r di na ry fir m ne ss fro m co nt in ui ng in th e act iv it y , an d (3 ) t h a t t h e ad ve rs e act io n was

m ot iv at ed at le as t in pa rt by th e ex erci se of th e p r o t e c t e d act iv it y .” Id

. (in te rn al
al te rat io n an d qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) (q uo ti ng L.L. Nel so n Ent er s., In c. v. Cn ty

. of
St . Lou is , 67 3 F .3d 79 9, 8 07 -0 8 (8 th Cir . 20 12 )).

Bo tk in arg ue s th at sh e di d no t ha ve th e au th or it y to pl ace Tay lo r di rect ly in to

se gr eg at io n, an d t he refo re “ th ere was no di sc ip li ne at al l, m uc h le ss an y th at wou ld
‘chi ll ’ Tay lo r fro m ‘eng ag in g in th e act iv it y .’ ” Seco nd

, Bo tk in arg ue s th at Tay lo r di d

no t su bm it an y ev id en ce of a ret al ia to ry m ot iv e. Co nt rary to Bo tk in ’s arg um en t th at

“ th e r e w a s no di sc ip li ne at al l,” th e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at Tay lo r rai se d a
ge nu in e fact ua l di sp ut e ab ou t whe th er Bo tk in ret al ia te d ag ai ns t hi m by rep or ti ng a fal se accu sa ti on th at sh e kn ew wou ld (an d d i d ) r e s u l t in hi s se gr eg at io n. As to

ret al ia to ry m ot iv e, th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at Bo tk in was di sp le as ed ab ou t Tay lo r’s
la wsu it a g ai ns t he r co wor ke rs , a s sh own by t he fact th at sh e co nf ro nt ed Tay lo r an d
th en le ft vi si bl y up se t. Bo tk in ’s arg um en ts are th in ly ve il ed ch al le ng es to th e di st ric t

co ur t’s fact ua l an d ev id en ti ary de t e r mi n a t io ns , an d we la ck juri sd ic ti on ov er th es e is su es at t hi s s ta ge

. Se e Ca pp s , 78 0 F .3d at 8 84

.

-4

-Howev er, we do h a v e ju ris di ct io n ov er th e le ga l de te rm in at io n of whe th er

Bo tk i n w a s en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y

. Id

. at 88 4. Bo tk in arg ue s th at sh e is

en ti tl ed to qu a l i f

i ed im m un it y be cau se (1 ) “ so m e ev id en ce” ex is te d th at Tay lo r

act ua ll y was in vo lv ed in th e co nd uc t Bo tk in rep or te d an d (2 ) “ t h e di sc ip li ne was gi ve n by a no n- bi as ed he ari ng of fic er.” Bo tk in ’s fir st arg um en t rel ie s on a

m is ap pl ic at io n of ou r cas e la w, se e Har ts fi el d v. Ni ch ol

s , 51 1 F.3 d 82 6, 82 9- 30 (8 th
Ci r. 20 08 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at an in m at e “ wou ld no t be pr ecl ud ed fro m m ai nt ai ni ng su it ”
in a cas e su ch as th is whe re a he ari ng pr od uc ed “ a fav or ab le res ul t for th e in m at e”).

Fu rth er, Bo tk in ’s a r gu m en t m is ap pr eh en ds Tay lo r’s cl ai m

. Tay lo r cl ai m s th at
Bo tk in ’s ret al ia to ry rep or t c a us ed hi m to sp en d si xt y da y s in se gr eg at io n be fo re an in ve st ig at io n ul ti m at el y de te rm in ed th at he was “ no t gu il ty” of th e al le ge d

m is co nd uc t. Se e id

. Bo tk in ’s se c o n d a r g u m en t ci te s to a cas e th at is si m pl y in ap po si te , se e de L l a n o v

. Berg lu nd

, 28 2 F.3 d 10 31
, 10 35 -3 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (d is cu ss in g, in th e co nt ex t of pr oc ed ur al du e pr oc es s, th e pr oc ed ur e req ui red to

te rm in at e an em

pl oyee wit h a co ns ti tu ti on al ly pr ot ect ed pr op ert y in te res t in hi s job ).
Thu s, we reject Bo tk in ’s le ga l arg um en ts wit h res pe ct to Tay lo r’s Fi rs t Am en dm en t

ret al ia ti on cla im

.

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e di st ric t cou rt’s det erm in at io n th at Bo tk in was no t

en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im

m un it y an d di sm is s th e rem ai nd er of Bo tk in ’s ap pe al fo r la ck
of juri sd ic ti on

.

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-5

-