Martinetti v. Davis, Case No. 3:13-cv-780-J-39JRK

DONALD MARTINETTI, Plaintiff, v. MAJOR DAVIS, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 3:13-cv-780-J-39JRK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

September 18, 2015

ORDER

I. Status

Plaintiff Donald Martinetti, an inmate of the Florida penal system, is proceeding in this action on his July 9, 2013 Amended Complaint (Doc. #5) (Amended Complaint) filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Martinetti names Major Davis, Sergeant Green, Nurse Martin, and Nurse Sealey, all employees at Columbia Correctional Institution Annex (CCIA), as Defendants.¹ Martinetti asserts causes of action for "First Amendment Retaliation" against each Defendant. Amended Complaint at 5, 7-9. As relief, Martinetti seeks compensatory and punitive damages in addition to costs andattorney's fees. Upon briefing by the parties, this Court denied Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's claim. See Order (Doc. #31).

This cause is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law (Doc. #49) (Motion). Martinetti was advised of the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, notified that the granting of a motion for summary judgment would represent a final adjudication of this case which may foreclose subsequent litigation on the matter, and given an opportunity to respond. See Summary Judgment Notice (Doc. #50). Martinetti responded. See Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #57) (Response).² Thus, this case is now ripe for review.

II. Allegations in the Complaint

Martinetti alleges that he suffers from degenerative disc disease, impairing his ability to walk. Amended Complaint at 2. He relies on a wheelchair for mobility. Id. In addition, he "requires access to various auxiliary aids and modified facilities[.]" Id. Martinetti alleges that Defendants retaliated against him for filing, pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and settling another lawsuit (ADA Suit) against the Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections(FDOC). Id. at 2-5. Martinetti filed the ADA Suit on October 13, 2011 and stipulated to a settlement and dismissal of the matter on December 18, 2012. Id. at 2-3. Soon after this settlement, Defendants engaged in numerous adverse actions, subjecting Martinetti to retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.

Specifically, Martinetti summarizes that, following settlement of the ADA Suit, (1) when Martinetti informed Nurses Martin and Sealey that his wheelchair had several defects and brought it in for repairs, the nurses intentionally hammered and damaged it; (2) Nurse Martin filed a disciplinary report against him for "disrespect" because Martinetti asked who had damaged his chair, but Martinetti did not receive a copy of the report nor attended any hearing related to the report; (3) he was transferred from a cell with accessibility features to one without such features; (4) Martinetti was assigned duties, such as sweeping, that he could not complete and was then placed in disciplinary confinement for his failure to complete such duties; (5) Martinetti's medical and security passes were revoked without explanation or justification; (6) Martinetti was denied grievance forms; (7) Martinetti was not allowed access to his legal documents or grievance forms; (8) the new CCIA warden inspected Martinetti's locker and read his confidential communications with his attorneys; and (9) he was denied access to a handicapped accessible shower. See id. at 3-10. Thus, Martinetti claims that Defendants violated his rights underthe First Amendment by their retaliatory actions. For each claim, Martinetti requests the following relief:

i. Compensatory damages;

ii. punitive damages; and

iii. costs and reasonable attorney's fees attendant with the prosecution of this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

Amended Complaint at 7-10.

III. Summary Judgment Standard

The Eleventh Circuit set forth the summary judgment standard.

Summary Judgment is proper when "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The substantive law controls which facts are material and which are irrelevant. Raney v. Vinson Guard Service, Inc., 120 F.3d 1192, 1196 (11th Cir. 1997). Typically, the nonmoving party may not rest upon only the allegations of his pleadings, but must set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial. Eberhardt v. Waters, 901 F.2d 1578, 1580 (11th Cir. 1990). ...

As we've emphasized, "[w]hen the moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56[], its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts ... Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no 'genuine issue for trial.'" Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 586-87, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). "[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Unsupported, conclusory allegations that aplaintiff suffered a constitutionally cognizant injury are insufficient to withstand a motion for summary judgment. SeeBennett v. Parker, 898 F.2d 1530, 1532-34 (11th Cir. 1990) (discounting inmate's claim as a conclusory allegation of serious injury that was unsupported by any physical evidence, medical records, or the corroborating testimony of witnesses).

Howard v. Memnon, 572 F. App'x 692, 694-95 (11th Cir. 2014) (footnote omitted).

IV. Defendants' Motion

In their Motion, Defendants contend that they are entitled to summary judgment because (1) Martinetti did not suffer any physical injury or request nominal damages, and (2) Martinetti cannot prove a First Amendment violation against any of the Defendants. Thus, Defendants argue that summary judgment must be granted in their favor. To support their motion, Defendants provide the following: (1) Martinetti's inmate record, D. Exs. A and B; (2) a CCIA document reflecting Martinetti's external movements, D. Ex. C; (3) a document reflecting the dates of employment of Defendants, D. Ex. D; (4) declarations of each Defendant and the Assistant Warden of CCIA Randall Polk (Polk), D. Exs. E, F, H, K, and L; (5) excerpts of depositions of Martinetti and Randall Polk, D. Exs. G and J; and (6) Martinetti's disciplinary report history and disciplinary report package, D. Exs. I and M.

Defendants provide internal documents reflecting Martinetti's housing assignments in comparison with Defendants' employmenthistories to show the relevant times where Martinetti was housed in CCIA and the Defendants were stationed there. Martinetti's inmate record reflects a release date of February 8, 2014 followed by supervision that ended February 21, 2015. D. Exs. A and B. Martinetti's movement/transfer history reflects that Martinetti was housed at CCIA for the final nineteen months of his sentence, i.e. from July 23, 2012 to his conditional release on February 8, 2014. D. Ex. C. As discussed previously, Martinetti's ADA Suit was settled on or about December 18, 2012, while Martinetti was housed at CCIA. Defendants provide organizational work assignments reflecting that (1) Major Davis worked at CCIA from July 6, 2012 to February 15, 2013 (two months after the settlement); (2) Sergeant Green worked at CCIA from March 30, 2012 to April 12, 2013 (four months after the settlement); (3) Nurse Martin worked at Columbia Correctional Institute (CCI)³ from December 27, 2010 to September 15, 2013 (nine months after the settlement); and (4) Nurse Sealey worked at CCI from November 9, 2012 to May 24, 2013 (five months after the settlement). D. Ex. D.

Defendants further provide declarations of Polk, a former colleague of the Defendants, and from the Defendants themselves. In his declaration, Polk explains that, while at CCIA, Martinetti was only assigned to a cell without wheelchair access for a singleminute and was never actually placed in that cell, attaching a document showing Martinetti's internal movements. D. Ex. E. Polk further explains that a Housing Officer makes dorm and bed assignments and Major Davis was never a Housing Officer at CCIA. Id. The attached document also shows that Martinetti was assigned the task of "houseman" for most of his time at CCIA and that Martinetti was placed in administrative confinement five times and disciplinary confinement twice, once in May 2013 and then in October 2013, both after Defendants Davis and Green had left CCIA. Id. at 7-8.

Defendant Davis corroborates Polk's assertions, similarly stating that while he was a Major at CCIA from July 2012 through February 2013, he was not a part of the cell or work assignment process and did not assign or require Martinetti to sweep the floors. D. Ex. F. Davis further states that he was unaware of Martinetti's ADA Suit and did not give or direct anyone else to give Martinetti a disciplinary report, as prison records show that Martinetti did not receive any disciplinary reports during Davis' tenure. Id. In his declaration, Defendant Green also states that he never served as the Housing Officer and did not assign inmates to dorms or beds at CCIA. D. Ex. H. Defendant Green was never permanently assigned as a confinement sergeant and only served in that role sparingly, on three or four separate occasions to cover for the permanent confinement sergeant. Id. Green states that henever refused to give Martinetti grievance forms, when requested, and could not have retaliated against him because he did not know about Martinetti's ADA Suit. Id. Green states that the Institutional Classification Team assigned Martinetti the task of houseman, and Green performed his duty to make sure that Martinetti performed his task,...