Opinion ID: 813918
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: District Court’s May 4, 2010 Order

Text: On May 4, 2010, the district court made three rulings in response to a motion for summary judgment by the Defendants. First, the court noted that Mr. Freeman had “not specified whether he is asserting his claims against the Defendants in their individual or official capacities.” Id. at 204. It liberally construed the pleadings, “assum[ing] that Mr. Freeman intended to assert both types of claims.” Id. The court concluded, however, that “no official capacity claims are cognizable” because “Mr. Freeman’s claims are based on discrete acts and because he -- 9 seeks no specific prospective remedy.” Id. The court therefore considered all the claims as brought against the Defendants in their individual capacities. The court also dismissed all individual capacity claims in which Mr. Freeman had not shown personal participation by a defendant. Second, the district court denied the motion seeking summary judgment for Mr. Carroll on the claim that Mr. Carroll had deprived Mr. Freeman of his right to call witnesses while acting as his inmate representative. The court also concluded that Mr. Carroll was not entitled to qualified immunity. The court later reversed course and dismissed Mr. Carroll. Third, the court concluded there was insufficient evidence to support a prima facie claim against Lts. Tappe, Braden, and Riggin. “[B]ecause Mr. Carroll allegedly did not advise the hearing officers of Mr. Freeman’s desire to call witnesses, the hearing officers cannot reasonably he held liable for failing to afford [him] a procedural protection they were not aware he had requested.” Id. at 213. Following these rulings, the only remaining defendant was Mr. Carroll, to be rejoined later by Lts. Tappe, Braden, and Riggin. 2. Reinstatement of Claims Against Hearing Board Members On January 5, 2011, Mr. Freeman filed a Rule 60(b)(1) motion for relief from judgment. He argued that the district court had erred in finding that he had failed to allege that the hearing board members were personally involved in the deprivation of Mr. Freeman’s rights. Given this mistake of fact, he requested that the court reinstate Lts. -- 10 Tappen, Braden, and Riggin as parties. On March 4, 2011, the district court concluded it had mistakenly determined that there were no allegations of Lts. Tappe, Braden, and Riggin’s personal participation in the deprivation of his rights. Accordingly, the district court granted Mr. Freeman’s motion, reinstating the claim against them for the denial of due process at the July 6 disciplinary hearing. 3. District Court’s January 18, 2012 Order On May 17, 2011, Mr. Freeman moved for summary judgment. On May 20, 2011, the defendants filed an amended motion to dismiss. On November 18, 2011, the district court denied Mr. Freeman’s motion for summary judgment. The court also stated that the evidence appeared to be insufficient for Mr. Freeman to establish his prima facie case and that there appeared to be no genuine issues of material fact to be resolved at trial. It therefore ordered him to present additional evidence demonstrating a prima facie case or otherwise to show cause why the court should not enter summary judgment. Mr. Freeman responded to the order with exhibits, and he requested additional time to conduct discovery pursuant to Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On January 18, 2012, the district court denied Mr. Freeman’s request for further discovery: (1) it doubted that he was a non-movant who could make a Rule 56(d) motion, as he had brought the motion for summary judgment; and (2) Mr. Freeman sought to discover evidence outside the context of the July 6, 2004 hearing, and there was no showing that such discovery was related to his due process rights during the hearing. -- 11 As will be discussed in further detail below, the district court also concluded that Mr. Freeman had not presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for his due process claims and therefore granted summary judgment in favor of the hearing board defendants and Mr. Carroll.