Opinion ID: 214080
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Moton v. Cowart

Text: Retaliatory disciplinary conduct was also an issue in Moton v. Cowart, 631 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir.2011), where this Court reversed the entry of summary judgment for the Defendant prison official, Captain Cowart. Inmate Moton had filed an October 30, 2004 grievance in which he wrote in large capital letters: REMEDY: RETURN MY REQUEST DATED 10-15-04 WITH APPROPRIATE ANSWER AS REQURED [sic]. Id. at 1339-40. Upon receipt, Defendant Cowart told Moton she would file a disciplinary report for disrespect. Id. Cowart contended Moton then told Cowart that `she would be hearing from his lawyer' and [y]ou will answer these grievances. Id. at 1340 (quotation marks omitted). Cowart filed two disciplinary reports alleging Moton violated prison rules prohibiting (1) disrespect to officials ... by means of words, gestures and the like and (2) making spoken, written or gestured threats against prison officials. Id. (quotation marks and brackets omitted). The disciplinary hearing team found Moton guilty, imposing disciplinary confinement and a loss of 60 days' gain time. Id. In Moton's appeal, the FDOC found him not guilty because Cowart's statement of facts did not support the charge. Id. After stating the same three elements of a retaliation claim set forth in Mosley, this Court in Moton pointed out [t]he district court assumed without deciding that Moton had satisfied the first two elements of his retaliation claim and had granted summary judgment upon finding Moton failed to establish a causal connection between his October 30 grievance and statements and Cowart's retaliatory action. Id. at 1342. Reversing in Moton, this Court concluded Moton had shown material issues of fact between his grievance and the discipline Cowart imposed. As to the grievance in capital letters, this Court found using large and upper case letters in a grievance, by itself, did not violate the prison rule prohibiting disrespect. Id. The Court also concluded as a matter of law that an inmate's statement that he wants or plans to contact his attorney does not constitute a punishable spoken threat and thus that prison rule was not violated, either. Id. at 1342-43 (quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, Moton's conduct did not violate any prison rule, and no prison infraction supported the discipline imposed. This Court in Moton concluded (1) that the district court erred by finding that Cowart `reasonably' concluded that Moton's grievance violated the prison rule against disrespect because the grievance included large capital letters, id. at 1343, and (2) the district court erred by finding that Moton's statement could be reasonably construed as a spoken threat. Id. at 1343 (quotation marks omitted). Moton thus showed both that the FDOC had found him not guilty and also that no objective prison official could reasonably conclude that Moton had violated any prison rule. Given there was no reasonable basis to support Cowart's disciplinary action that instantly followed Moton's written grievance and verbal attorney statement, Moton had created a fact issue as to causal relationship between his grievance and the discipline Cowart imposed. Id. at 1342.