Opinion ID: 800677
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Classification Specialist Chuck Zamiara

Text: Chuck Zamiara is the only defendant from Central Office, where the decision to raise King's security was made. Defendant Zamiara claims that Nick Ludwick, the Classification Director, was the one who made the ultimate decision. No one disputes that Ludwick had to sign off on the decision because King was listed as CFA Hold, correctly or not. No one disputes that Zamiara emailed Chaffee with the instructions to raise King's security level and later emailed Berghuis to adjust the initial screen. R. 130-3, Ex. 18 (Chaffee/Zamiara Email); R. 130-3, Ex. 20 (Zamiara/Berghuis Email). The district court did not state specifically whether Zamiara was involved in the decision to increase King's security level as it did with the others, but the district court did note that [n]either Zamiara nor Ludwick could testify with any certainty which of them first recommended that King be transferred to a Level III facility. King IV, 2009 WL 3424221, at . At trial, Zamiara adamantly maintained that Ludwick made all the decisions with respect to raising King's security level. R. 172 (Trial Tr. II at 162:14-16) (That would not have been my decision.); id. at 165:12 (That is the message I relayed from Mr. Ludwick.); id. at 166:3-4 (Well, if we use a little logic, we can say it came from Mr. Ludwick.). Zamiara did not dispute, however, that he was the one who received Chaffee's email and responded to it with the instructions to increase King's security level and what to note in the transfer screen. King IV, 2009 WL 3424221, at -8. Although generally finding all of the witnesses credible, including King, [21] the district court was particularly impressed by Zamiara, id. at , despite Zamiara's frequent sarcasm that is apparent even from the written record, see R. 172 (Trial Tr. II at 163:17-24). [22] Zamiara's best efforts aside, however, placing the final decision entirely on Ludwick's shoulders has no bearing on whether Zamiara can be held legally responsible for the resulting adverse action. Thus, Zamiara's credibility on this issue is ultimately not relevant because Zamiara admitted the relevant facts relating to his participation in the increase even if he denied being the decision maker. Zamiara's acts were a proximate cause of the increase in King's security level, even if Ludwick had to approve it. The only question is, therefore, whether Zamiara was motivated by King's protected conduct. The district court found that Zamiara's motivation was not because King was engaging in protected activities, but because he was using his influence over other prisoners to create problems and was undermining the authority of prison officials. King IV, 2009 WL 3424221, at . For all the reasons already discussed, this finding is clear error in light of the fact that the only problems on the record that Zamiara was aware of were protected activitiesassisting others to file grievances and participating in the Warden's Forum. The only information that Zamiara had regarding King was in the email from Chaffee. R. 172 (Trial Tr. II at 166:19-167:20). In that email, Chaffee indicated that King could instigate other prisoners to create problems, listing as examples grievances and complaints to the Warden's Forum. R. 130-3, Ex. 18 (Chaffee/Zamiara Email). Zamiara was unable to identify any other disruptive conduct or source of information other than the email when discussing why he believed an increase in King's security was appropriate. [23] Zamiara's sole information regarding King's behavior appears to have come from Chaffee. [24] Zamiara's motivation was at least in part to punish King for his protected activitieshe did not have to know King personally for this action to be unconstitutional. The district court's finding with respect to Zamiara's motivation was therefore clear error. Zamiara was also involved in the later action of asking Chaffee to edit the security screen. As discussed above with Warden Berghuis, although this was hardly an appropriate reaction to the concerns identified by the state's attorney about potential legal action from the error, there was no evidence presented that the revision to the screen was necessary to maintain or implement the adverse action. Because the relevant adverse action was the initial increase itself, we cannot say that the act of backdating the screen caused the adverse action or even prolonged it, even if it was motivated in part by a continued desire to punish King for the exercise of his constitutional rights. As with defendants Wells and Chaffee, the district court's judgment with respect to Zamiara applied the wrong legal standard and made a key finding of fact unsupported by the record evidence and explicitly contradicted by other undisputed evidence. We therefore vacate the judgment in favor of Zamiara and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.