Opinion ID: 800677
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Defendants' Actions Absent Protected Activity

Text: Having found that the record demonstrates a causal connection between the adverse action and King's protected conduct for Wells, Chaffee, and Zamiara, we next must determine whether these defendants have shown by a preponderance of the evidence that they would have taken the same action absent the protected conduct. Mt. Healthy, 429 U.S. at 285, 97 S.Ct. 568; Arnett v. Myers, 281 F.3d 552, 562 (6th Cir.2002). The district court devoted one sentence to whether the defendants would have taken the same action in the absence of King's protected activity: Moreover, even if they were motivated in part by any protected conduct, the Court finds that Defendants would have taken the same action in the absence of King's protected activity. King IV, 2009 WL 3424221, at . This conclusion is not further explained and is unsupported by the record. The only suggestion on the record of King creating any disturbances unrelated to his protected conduct is the Wells Memo. In her memo, Wells cites several concerns that standing alone would be worrisome. She provides quotes from King, stating these guys in the unit will do whatever I ask, and if I wanted to cause a disturbance I could anytime. R. 11-2, Ex. F (Wells Memo). She also states that the officers believed that King's authority over other prisoners is higher then [sic] the officers and that the officers believed that King had developed a cadre of followers over whom he has substantial influence. Id. Wells herself cannot merely point to this Memo as proof that she would have acted the same way regardless of King's protected activities because, as already discussed, she was unable to offer even minimal substantiation of any of these statements, and her bias against King was evidenced by her acts of instructing other officers to fabricate misconduct tickets against him. And although these statements would support a recipient's decision to increase King's security, neither Chaffee nor Zamiara can rely on them because neither man testified that they read this Memo or acted as a result of these statements. Chaffee testified that his knowledge came from Harry; Zamiara's knowledge came from Chaffee. R. 171 (Trial Tr. at 141:14-21); R. 172 (Trial Tr. II at 166:19-167:20). Every witness who testified that they were motivated by King's disruptive behavior could not point to any other disruptive behavior aside from the grievances, the participation in the Warden's Forum, or the personal property issues raised in Cain. Absent the protected conduct, the disturbances would not have existed, and no action would have been taken. The defendants have not produced any evidence, let alone a preponderance, that they would have each taken the same actions against King had he not been engaging in protected conduct. See Mt. Healthy, 429 U.S. at 287, 97 S.Ct. 568. Because the defendants have failed to show any basis in the record for increasing King's security other than his purportedly disruptive First Amendment conduct, the defendants have failed to defeat King's claim for First Amendment retaliation. The district court erred in concluding otherwise.