Case 2:23-cv-00078-JPH-MKK Document 180 Filed 03/27/25 Page 1 of 37 PageID #:
`1903
`
`
`ANTHONY MARTIN,
`
`
`
`CHRISTOPHER HOLCOMB Lt., et al.,
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
`TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`No. 2:23-cv-00078-JPH-MKK
`
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS,
`DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE, ENTERING FILING RESTRICTION
`ON PLAINTIFF, AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
`
`On December 10, 2024, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on the
`
`defendants' motion for sanctions, dkt. 162. In this order, the Court renders its
`
`findings of fact and conclusions of law, grants the defendants' motion, imposes
`
`sanctions (including a filing restriction) on the plaintiff, and directs the entry of
`
`final judgment.
`
`I. Procedural Background
`
`
`
`Anthony Martin alleges the defendants violated his Eighth Amendment
`
`rights by failing to adequately maintain the plumbing system at Wabash Valley
`
`Correctional Facility and respond reasonably when sewage flooded his cell. The
`
`defendants moved for summary judgment on April 16, 2024, dkt. 84, and their
`
`motion remains pending.
`
`
`
`On June 7, 2024, the defendants moved for sanctions against Mr. Martin.
`
`Dkt. 106. The subjects of their motion are inmate grievances and requests for
`
`interview that Mr. Martin filed in opposition to summary judgment. The
`
`
`1903
`
`
`ANTHONY MARTIN,
`
`
`
`CHRISTOPHER HOLCOMB Lt., et al.,
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
`TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`No. 2:23-cv-00078-JPH-MKK
`
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS,
`DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE, ENTERING FILING RESTRICTION
`ON PLAINTIFF, AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
`
`On December 10, 2024, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on the
`
`defendants' motion for sanctions, dkt. 162. In this order, the Court renders its
`
`findings of fact and conclusions of law, grants the defendants' motion, imposes
`
`sanctions (including a filing restriction) on the plaintiff, and directs the entry of
`
`final judgment.
`
`I. Procedural Background
`
`
`
`Anthony Martin alleges the defendants violated his Eighth Amendment
`
`rights by failing to adequately maintain the plumbing system at Wabash Valley
`
`Correctional Facility and respond reasonably when sewage flooded his cell. The
`
`defendants moved for summary judgment on April 16, 2024, dkt. 84, and their
`
`motion remains pending.
`
`
`
`On June 7, 2024, the defendants moved for sanctions against Mr. Martin.
`
`Dkt. 106. The subjects of their motion are inmate grievances and requests for
`
`interview that Mr. Martin filed in opposition to summary judgment. The
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00078-JPH-MKK Document 180 Filed 03/27/25 Page 2 of 37 PageID #:
`1904
`
`defendants assert that Mr. Martin falsified these documents, either creating
`
`them from whole cloth or by altering existing documents.
`
`
`
`The Court directed Mr. Martin to respond in writing to the sanctions
`
`motion. Dkt. 114. After reviewing the parties' briefing and additional evidence,
`
`the Court found material factual disputes and set an evidentiary hearing. Dkt.
`
`144.
`
`
`
`That hearing took place on December 10, 2024. Dkt. 165. The parties
`
`presented evidence from six witnesses and submitted post-hearing briefs, dkts.
`
`167, 168.
`
`Mr. Martin attached to his post-hearing filing an affidavit attesting that
`
`Ashlynn Gonthier, who testified as a witness at the evidentiary hearing,
`
`confessed to him on January 22 that she and other witnesses lied during their
`
`testimony at the evidentiary hearing and engaged in other misconduct
`
`throughout the litigation. Dkt. 168 at 15–20. The defendants responded, denying
`
`the allegations. Dkt. 169. At the Court's request, the defendants supplemented
`
`their response with evidence, including declarations from Ms. Gonthier and other
`
`witnesses, and video and photographs showing Ms. Gonthier's and Mr. Martin's
`
`movements during the time in question. Dkts. 174, 175, 176, 177, 178. Mr.
`
`Martin filed a supplemental response on March 19. Dkt. 179.
`
`II. Legal Standard
`
`
`
`A district court has "inherent authority to manage judicial proceedings and
`
`to regulate the conduct of those appearing before it, and pursuant to that
`
`authority may impose appropriate sanctions to penalize and discourage
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00078-JPH-MKK Document 180 Filed 03/27/25 Page 3 of 37 PageID #:
`1905
`
`misconduct." Ramirez v. T&H Lemont, Inc., 845 F.3d 772, 776 (7th Cir. 2016)
`
`(citing Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 46–50 (1991)). "Any sanctions
`
`imposed pursuant to the court's inherent authority must be premised on a
`
`finding that the culpable party willfully abused the judicial process or otherwise
`
`conducted the litigation in bad faith." Ramirez, 845 F.3d at 776. This finding
`
`must be based on a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 777.
`
`"In deciding what measure of sanctions to impose, the district court should
`
`consider the egregiousness of the conduct in question in relation to all aspects
`
`of the judicial process." Greviskes v. Universities Rsch. Ass'n, Inc., 417 F.3d 752,
`
`759 (7th Cir. 2005) (cleaned up). "Sanctions, including dismissal, must be
`
`proportionate to the circumstances.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. Considerations relevant to
`
`proportionality include the extent of the misconduct, the ineffectiveness of lesser
`
`sanctions, the harm from the misconduct, and the weakness of the case."
`
`Donelson v. Hardy, 931 F.3d 565, 569 (7th Cir. 2019) (internal citation omitted).
`
`"[C]ourts generally have an interest in both punishing a party's dishonesty and
`
`deterring others who might consider similar misconduct." Secrease v. Western
`
`& Southern Life Ins., 800 F.3d 397, 402 (7th Cir. 2015).
`
`The Court may properly exercise its authority to dismiss an action "'when
`
`the plaintiff has abused the judicial process by seeking relief based on
`
`information that the plaintiff knows is false.'" Ramirez, 845 F.3d at 776 (quoting
`
`Secrease, 800 F.3d at 401).
`
`[F]alsifying evidence to secure a court victory undermines the most
`basic foundations of our judicial system. If successful, the effort
`produces an unjust result. Even if it is not successful, the effort
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00078-JPH-MKK Document 180 Filed 03/27/25 Page 4 of 37 PageID #:
`1906
`
`imposes unjust burdens on the opposing party, the judiciary, and
`honest litigants who count on the courts to decide their cases
`promptly and fairly.
`
`Secrease, 800 F3d at 402. A "'dismissal with prejudice is an appropriate sanction
`
`for lying to the court in order to receive a benefit from it, because no one needs
`
`to be warned not to lie to the judiciary.'" Sanders v. Melvin, 25 F.4th 475, 481
`
`(7th Cir. 2022) (quoting Ayoubi v. Dart, 640 F. App'x 524, 528–29 (7th Cir. 2016)).
`
`In addition, "[c]ourts have the inherent authority to curb abusive and frivolous
`
`litigation by imposing filing restrictions that . . . are tailored to the abuse."
`
`Zielinski v. Wisconsin Lab. & Indus. Rev. Comm'n, No. 21-3042, 2022 WL
`
`2115300, at *1 (7th Cir. June 13, 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 2463 (2023),
`
`reh'g denied, 144 S. Ct. 39 (2023); see also Support Sys. Int'l v. Mack, 45 F.3d
`
`185, 186 (7th Cir. 1995) ("[A]ny sanction imposed by a federal court for the abuse
`
`of its processes be tailored to the abuse.").
`
`III. Findings of Fact: Challenged Grievances
`
`
`
`1.
`
`In their summary judgment motion, the defendants asserted as
`
`undisputed material facts that Mr. Martin never submitted grievances,
`
`handwritten requests, or other documents related to flooding, wastewater,
`
`plumbing, or toilet issues between September 4 and 7, 2021. Dkt. 85,
`
`undisputed material facts (UMFs) 46, 48.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`In response, Mr. Martin asserts that he submitted grievances dated
`
`September 7 and September 10 concerning those issues, but they were returned
`
`because he was on grievance abuser status. Dkt. 98 at 20, 23; dkt. 99 at 19–20.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00078-JPH-MKK Document 180 Filed 03/27/25 Page 5 of 37 PageID #:
`1907
`
`A.
`
`Challenged Grievance Dated September 7
`
`
`
`3. Mr. Martin supported this assertion with an inmate grievance dated
`
`September 7. Dkt. 98 at 20.
`
`
`
`3a. The September 7 grievance describes backed up toilets in
`
`Mr. Martin's cell and unit.
`
`
`
`3b. The September 7 grievance does not have a "RECEIVED" stamp at
`
`the top, a staff member's signature at the bottom, or any other indication that it
`
`was received by the prison staff.
`
`
`
`4. Mr. Martin also supported his assertion that he submitted a
`
`grievance regarding plumbing problems between September 4 and 7 with a
`
`"Return of Grievance" dated September 8, 2021. Dkt. 98 at 21.
`
`
`
`4a. The return is addressed to Mr. Martin's name and identifying
`
`number.
`
`
`
`4b. The return indicates that a grievance received from Mr. Martin on
`
`September 8, 2021, could not be processed because he was on grievance abuser
`
`status. Dkt. 98 at 21.
`
`
`
`4c. The return is signed by T. Templeton.
`
`4d. A handwritten notation at the top of the page states "Received 9-9-
`
`21," and the initials "AV" are circled.
`
`5.
`
`Tawni Templeton was a grievance specialist at WVCF in September
`
`2021. Dkt. 103-3 at ¶ 2.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00078-JPH-MKK Document 180 Filed 03/27/25 Page 6 of 37 PageID #:
`1908
`
`6. On September 8, 2021, Ms. Templeton received a grievance from
`
`Mr. Martin, but it was not the grievance that he submitted in response to the
`
`summary judgment motion. Id. at ¶ 30.
`
`6a. This grievance is also dated September 7, 2021, and features
`
`Mr. Martin's name and identifying number. Dkt. 103-2 at 5.
`
`6b. Mr. Martin wrote "* Emergency Grievance *" at the top of the page.
`
`Id.
`
`Id.
`
`Id.
`
`6c. This grievance is stamped "RECEIVED" with a date of September 8.
`
`6d. The word "Abuser" is handwritten in the top left corner of the page.
`
`6e. The true September 8 grievance raises complaints regarding
`
`Mr. Martin's outgoing legal mail. Id.
`
`Mr. Martin's challenged (left) and actual (right) September 7 grievances.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00078-JPH-MKK Document 180 Filed 03/27/25 Page 7 of 37 PageID #:
`1909
`
`
`
`7. Ms. Templeton responded to the September 8 grievance with a
`
`grievance return dated September 8. Dkt. 103-3 at ¶¶ 33–34.
`
`7a. The grievance return attached to Ms. Templeton's affidavit is
`
`identical to the return attached to Mr. Martin's summary judgment response
`
`except it is stamped "SCANNED" in the top right corner and does not include a
`
`handwritten date or initials. Dkt. 103-2 at 6.
`
`7b. Ms. Templeton testified that she routinely stamped grievances
`
`"RECEIVED" after receiving them. Dkt. 165 at 94:18–95:7.
`
`September 8 grievance returns filed by Mr. Martin (left) and the defendants (right).
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00078-JPH-MKK Document 180 Filed 03/27/25 Page 8 of 37 PageID #:
`1910
`
`B.
`
`Challenged Grievance Dated September 10
`
`
`
`8. Mr. Martin also responded to the summary judgment motion with a
`
`grievance dated September 10. Dkt. 98 at 23.
`
`
`
`8a. The September 10 grievance takes issue with the prison staff's
`
`alleged rejection of the September 7 grievance. Id.
`
`
`
`8b. The September 10 grievance does not have a "RECEIVED" stamp at
`
`the top, a staff member's signature at the bottom, or any other indication that it
`
`was received by the prison staff.
`
`
`
`9. Mr. Martin also supported his summary judgment response with a
`
`"Return of Grievance" dated September 13, 2021. Dkt. 98 at 24.
`
`
`
`9a. The return is addressed to Mr. Martin's name and identifying
`
`number.
`
`
`
`9b. The return indicates that a grievance received from Mr. Martin on
`
`September 13, 2021, could not be processed because he was on grievance abuser
`
`status. Dkt. 98 at 24.
`
`
`
`9c. The return is signed by T. Templeton.
`
`9d. The return includes a handwritten line or checkmark next to
`
`Mr. Martin's cell number.
`
`10. On September 13, 2021, Ms. Templeton received a grievance from
`
`Mr. Martin, but it was not the one he submitted in response to the summary
`
`judgment motion. Dkt. 103-3 at ¶ 42.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00078-JPH-MKK Document 180 Filed 03/27/25 Page 9 of 37 PageID #:
`1911
`
`10a. This grievance is also dated September 10, 2021, and features
`
`Mr. Martin's name and identifying number. Dkt. 103-2 at 7.
`
`10b. Mr. Martin wrote "* Emergency Grievance *" at the top of the page.
`
`Id.
`
`Id.
`
`10c. This grievance is stamped "RECEIVED" with a date of September 13.
`
`10d. The true September 10 grievance raises complaints regarding
`
`Mr. Martin's outgoing legal mail. Id.
`
`Mr. Martin's challenged (left) and actual (right) September 10 grievances.
`
`
`
`11. Ms. Templeton responded to the September 10 grievance with a
`
`grievance return dated September 13. Dkt. 103-3 at ¶¶ 45–56.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00078-JPH-MKK Document 180 Filed 03/27/25 Page 10 of 37 PageID
`#: 1912
`
`11a. The return attached to Ms. Templeton's affidavit is identical to the
`
`return attached to Mr. Martin's summary judgment response except it is
`
`stamped "SCANNED" and does not include the handwritten line or checkmark.
`
`Dkt. 103-2 at 8.
`
`
`September 13 grievance returns filed by Mr. Martin (left) and the defendants (right).
`
`
`
`
`
`Additional Grievances
`
`C.
`
`12. The defendants have also designated as evidence additional
`
`grievances Mr. Martin submitted that are dated August 25, September 10,
`
`September 13, and September 14, 2021. Dkt. 102-1 at 1, 3, 9, 11.
`
`12a. All four have corresponding returns signed by Ms. Templeton. Id. at
`
`2, 4, 10, 12.
`
`12b. All four returns note that Mr. Martin was on grievance abuser
`
`status. Id.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00078-JPH-MKK Document 180 Filed 03/27/25 Page 11 of 37 PageID
`#: 1913
`
`12c. All
`
`four grievances are stamped "RECEIVED" on the date
`
`Ms. Templeton issued the corresponding return.
`
`12d. Mr. Martin wrote "* Emergency Grievance *" on three of the four
`
`grievances. Id. at 1, 3, 9.
`
`12e. These grievances allege that an officer came to Mr. Martin's cell and
`
`harassed him by calling him a "snitch," he was deprived of two meals on one day,
`
`his outgoing mail was mishandled, he was given the wrong lunch and deprived
`
`of dinner on a different day, and he was denied information about potential
`
`defendants in a lawsuit concerning his medical care and meals. Id.
`
`13. The grievances Mr. Martin submitted between August 25 and
`
`September 14, 2021, are all written on a version of the grievance form dated April
`
`2017. Dkt. 103-2 at 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11. However, the challenged grievances
`
`Mr. Martin attached to his summary judgment response are written on a version
`
`of the form dated March 2020. Dkt. 98 at 20, 23.
`
`Comparative form designations and markings between Mr. Martin's challenged
`September 10 grievance (top) and actual September 13 grievance (bottom).
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00078-JPH-MKK Document 180 Filed 03/27/25 Page 12 of 37 PageID
`#: 1914
`
`14. Mr. Martin did not disclose the challenged grievances dated
`
`September 7 and 10 in discovery or file them with the Court at any time before
`
`his summary judgment response. Dkt. 165 at 72:25–73:4.
`
`D. Mr. Martin's Credibility and Explanations for the Challenged
`Grievances
`
`15. Mr. Martin states in his response to the sanctions motion that he
`
`submitted two grievances each on September 7 and 10—the challenged
`
`grievances he attached to his summary judgment response and the grievances
`
`the defendants attached to their sanctions motion—and received one return for
`
`each pair. Dkt. 124 at 4–6.
`
`15a. This explanation is not credible.
`
`15b. The defendants' records show that when Mr. Martin submitted two
`
`grievances on August 25, 2021, he received two returns, one for each grievance.
`
`Dkt. 103-2 at 1–4. This undermines Mr. Martin's contention that he received one
`
`return in response to two grievances on September 7 and again on September
`
`10.
`
`15c. The credibility of Mr. Martin's claim that the September 7 and
`
`September 10 grievances are authentic is further undermined by his "one-
`
`return-for-two-grievances" theory, which is contradictory. He notes that the
`
`September 8 return he filed has a handwritten notation that does not appear on
`
`the September 8 return the defendants filed. See dkt. 124 at 5; compare dkt. 98
`
`at 21 to dkt. 103-2 at 6. The implication of Mr. Martin's argument is that he
`
`received two grievance returns on September 8, which shows that he submitted
`
`two legitimate grievances on September 7. Mr. Martin therefore simultaneously
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00078-JPH-MKK Document 180 Filed 03/27/25 Page 13 of 37 PageID
`#: 1915
`
`argues that his two September 7 grievances are legitimate, and he received one
`
`joint response to them, and that his two September 7 grievances are legitimate
`
`because they received distinct responses—both can't be true.
`
`15d. Mr. Martin's story about the September 7 and September 10
`
`grievances is further undermined by the versions of the grievance form used.
`
`The six authentic grievances that Mr. Martin submitted in August and
`
`September 2021 were on a version of the grievance form dated April 2017. The
`
`two grievances relating to the conditions in his cell that Mr. Martin alleged he
`
`submitted on September 7 and September 10, 2021, were on a version of the
`
`grievance form dated March 2020. The most plausible explanation for the
`
`different versions is that Mr. Martin used the newer version of the grievance form
`
`(March 2020) when he created the two challenged grievances in 2024 for the
`
`purpose of responding to Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
`
`16. Mr. Martin's argument that the absence of "RECEIVED" stamps on
`
`the challenged September 7 and 10 grievances shows that he did not falsify those
`
`grievances is not persuasive. Dkt. 124 at 6–7.
`
`16a. Mr. Martin supports his argument with several grievance documents
`
`that he notes are also not stamped "RECEIVED." Dkt. 117 at 17–31. However,
`
`none of these documents appears to have been received by Ms. Templeton, who
`
`allegedly received and responded to his two challenged grievances.
`
`16b. Meanwhile, Ms. Templeton's testimony that she routinely stamped
`
`grievances "RECEIVED" after receiving them is credible. Dkt. 165 at 94:18–95:7.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00078-JPH-MKK Document 180 Filed 03/27/25 Page 14 of 37 PageID
`#: 1916
`
`Indeed, every grievance for which she submitted a return in August and
`
`September 2021 is stamped consistent with her testimony. Dkt. 103-2.
`
`17. Mr. Martin next addresses why the IDOC did not have copies or
`
`records of his September 7 and 10 grievances, despite evidence that IDOC keeps
`
`a copy of every grievance filed. Mr. Martin blames it on a transition in the
`
`Indiana Department of Correction's (IDOC) electronic records system that caused
`
`records of some grievances to be lost. Dkt. 124 at 8–9. This argument is not
`
`persuasive. The IDOC maintained paper copies of grievances that were received
`
`and returned. See dkt. 165 at 75:14–76:2, 77:9–24, 83:23–84:9. Those records
`
`include six other grievances submitted by Mr. Martin in August and September
`
`2021, but not the two grievances dated September 7 and September 10, 2021,
`
`that he filed in response to summary judgment. Dkt. 103-2.
`
`18. Mr. Martin testified at the evidentiary hearing that he did not mark
`
`the challenged grievances as emergency grievances because he submitted them
`
`at the same time as other grievances that he wanted to receive greater priority.
`
`Dkt. 165 at 39:23–41:8. The Court does not find this testimony credible.
`
`18a. Mr. Martin submitted two grievances dated August 25, 2021, and
`
`labeled them both as emergencies. Dkt. 103-2 at 1, 3. Mr. Martin does not
`
`explain anywhere in the record why it was important to prioritize one grievance
`
`over another filed the same day in some instances but not others.
`
`18b. Mr. Martin testified that he labeled the true September 7 and 10
`
`grievances as emergencies because his right to pursue legal challenges is his
`
`"heartbeat" and that a violation of his First Amendment right supersedes any
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00078-JPH-MKK Document 180 Filed 03/27/25 Page 15 of 37 PageID
`#: 1917
`
`challenge to his Eighth Amendment rights. Dkt. 165 at 39:23—41:8. But Mr.
`
`Martin labeled at least three other grievances submitted in August and
`
`September 2021 as "Emergency." These grievances concerned alleged Eighth
`
`Amendment violations, including being exposed to violence by staff members and
`
`denial of meals. Mr. Martin does not credibly explain why he identified those
`
`grievances, but not the challenged September 7 and 10 grievances, as
`
`"Emergency." Dkt. 103-2 at 1, 3, 9. Indeed, Mr. Martin grieved a dietary issue
`
`and an access-to-courts issue on consecutive days and labeled both documents
`
`as emergency grievances. Id. at 9, 11.
`
`19. Mr. Martin also testified at the evidentiary hearing that he did not
`
`produce the challenged September 7 and 10 grievances in discovery because he
`
`has too many legal documents to keep in his cell at one time and did not discover
`
`the documents until he "came into a motion to compel in 2:23-cv-58." Dkt. 165
`
`at 55:13–56:10. This testimony lacks credibility and supports an inference that
`
`Mr. Martin did not produce the challenged grievances during discovery because
`
`they did not exist until he created them to avoid summary judgment.
`
`19a. The docket in Martin v. Donovan, No. 2:23-cv-00058-MPB-MKK,
`
`reflects that one motion to compel has been filed, and it was filed by the
`
`defendants on September 13, 2024—more than three months after Mr. Martin
`
`filed his summary judgment response in this case. See id., dkt. 68. Mr. Martin
`
`could not have filed documents in May that he did not discover until he was
`
`served with a motion to compel in September.
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00078-JPH-MKK Document 180 Filed 03/27/25 Page 16 of 37 PageID
`#: 1918
`
`19b. Martin v. Donovan concerns alleged harassment and physical abuse
`
`by officers in February 2021, see id. at dkt. 9, six months before the plumbing
`
`issues raised in the challenged grievances. Even construing Mr. Martin's
`
`testimony more generally, it is difficult to imagine that he discovered grievances
`
`about plumbing in September 2021 while sorting through discovery regarding
`
`harassment and physical abuse in February 2021.
`
`20. Finally, Mr. Martin argues in his post-hearing brief that the
`
`defendants did not assert the affirmative defense that he failed to exhaust
`
`administrative remedies before he filed this case because the complete process
`
`was unavailable to him due to his abuser status. Against this backdrop, he
`
`argues, it would be against his interest for him to generate false grievances
`
`showing that he successfully used the process to present his concerns to the
`
`prison staff. Dkt. 168 at 6. This argument is unpersuasive for two reasons.
`
`20a. First, the grievances Mr. Martin submitted with his summary
`
`judgment response have no bearing on whether the whole process was available
`
`to him. According to Mr. Martin, his grievances were rejected due to his abuser
`
`status. The challenged grievances could not be construed as showing that
`
`Mr. Martin failed to exhaust before filing suit.
`
`20b. Second, the challenged grievances did not come to light until merits
`
`summary judgment briefing. If Mr. Martin created the challenged grievances
`
`specifically to defeat that motion—as all the evidence suggests—he did so at a
`
`point in the case where the exhaustion defense could no longer harm him.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00078-JPH-MKK Document 180 Filed 03/27/25 Page 17 of 37 PageID
`#: 1919
`
`20c. In sum, the exhaustion defense either has no bearing on the
`
`likelihood that the challenged grievances are authentic or lends additional
`
`support to the theory that Mr. Martin created them after receiving the summary
`
`judgment briefing.
`
`21. Overall, the Court finds that Mr. Martin is not a credible witness.
`
`21a. As noted above, Mr. Martin has not offered any plausible
`
`explanation that would cause the Court to conclude that the grievances
`
`challenged by Defendants are authentic.
`
`21b. Mr. Martin's demeanor during the evidentiary hearing also detracts
`
`from his credibility. Throughout the hearing, Mr. Martin interrupted, spoke over,
`
`and argued with the Court. See, e.g., dkt. 165 at 18:2–19:6, 69:1–16, 87:10–
`
`88:1. He avoided opposing counsel's questions and offered his own,
`
`unresponsive arguments. See, e.g., id. at 38:13–22. His demeanor displayed
`
`anger and hostility, and the substance of his testimony was bereft of any
`
`coherent, factually supported explanation for the authenticity of his grievances.
`
`See generally id. at 132:9–138:5.
`
`E. Mr. Martin Submitted False Grievances at Summary Judgment
`
`
`
`22. The Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence noted above,
`
`and in light of the additional considerations discussed below, that Mr. Martin
`
`created false grievances dated September 7 and 10 and attached them to his
`
`summary judgment response. See dkt. 98 at 20–24.
`
`
`
`23. Further, Mr. Martin presented these false grievances alongside the
`
`returns he received for the true September 7 and 10 grievances to give the
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00078-JPH-MKK Document 180 Filed 03/27/25 Page 18 of 37 PageID
`#: 1920
`
`appearance that the defendants had knowledge of the issues underlying his
`
`claims. Id.
`
`
`
`24. Mr. Martin created the false grievances and attached them with his
`
`true grievance returns for the purpose of creating a material factual dispute that
`
`would avoid summary judgment.
`
`IV. Findings of Fact: Post-Hearing Allegations
`
`
`
`25. With his post-hearing brief, Mr. Martin filed an affidavit alleging
`
`widespread misconduct by the defendants, their counsel, and witnesses they
`
`called at the evidentiary hearing. Dkt. 168 at 15–20.
`
`
`
`25a. Mr. Martin attests that, on January 22, 2025, he encountered
`
`Ashlynn Gonthier while waiting to be transported from one building at the prison
`
`to another.
`
`
`
`25b. Mr. Martin attests that Ms. Gonthier (i) apologized for testifying
`
`falsely at the evidentiary hearing, (ii) stated that another defense witness testified
`
`falsely during the hearing, (iii) discussed her interactions with defense counsel
`
`after Mr. Martin filed his lawsuit, (iv) discussed notes and e-mails she received
`
`about the plumbing issues underlying Mr. Martin's lawsuit, (v) stated that
`
`Mike Ellis, IDOC Litigation Liaison, told her all records of those notes and e-
`
`mails were lost during the change in the electronic records system, (vi) admitted
`
`that she communicated with defense counsel and witnesses through personal e-
`
`mail and phone accounts (presumably to keep those communications out of
`
`discovery), (vii) said she would like to correct her false testimony under oath to
`
`set a good example for her daughter, even if it meant losing her job, but could
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00078-JPH-MKK Document 180 Filed 03/27/25 Page 19 of 37 PageID
`#: 1921
`
`not risk jail time, (viii) encouraged Mr. Martin to request additional discovery so
`
`he could uncover damning communications from personal e-mail and phone
`
`accounts, (ix) complimented his performance at the evidentiary hearing, and (x)
`
`identified another witness who would offer testimony beneficial to Mr. Martin if
`
`called to testify.
`
`
`
`26. The defendants
`
`responded with video, photographs, and
`
`declarations rebutting Mr. Martin's allegations. Dkts. 175, 176, 177, 178. The
`
`three videos are from three different cameras showing three different locations
`
`in one building. None of the three show Mr. Martin and Ms. Gonthier in the same
`
`location at the same time.
`
`
`
`26a. The first video, labeled Exhibit F, is 3:18 long. It begins with two
`
`staff members—identified as Officer Jessica Richardson and Legal Coordinator
`
`Jeremiah Hall—escorting Mr. Martin down a hallway. At 0:35, they open a door
`
`and exit the hallway. Mr. Martin is not visible on this video after 0:36, and
`
`Ms. Gonthier is not visible at all.
`
`
`
`26b. The second video, Exhibit G, is 2:40 long. The camera is in a corner
`
`and shows two hallways coming together. One ends with an exterior door. At
`
`0:08, Mr. Martin, Officer Richardson, and Mr. Hall come through the other side
`
`of the door they exited in the previous video. A screen shot from the surveillance
`
`system shows that this occurred about 2:40:57 P.M. See dkt. 175-4 at ¶ 14.
`
`Then, they pass under the camera at 0:20 on the video.
`
`26c. In the second video, Ms. Gonthier appears outside the exterior door at 1:33
`
`on the video, enters the hallway, and then passes under the camera at 01:41.
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00078-JPH-MKK Document 180 Filed 03/27/25 Page 20 of 37 PageID
`#: 1922
`
`Neither Ms. Gonthier nor Mr. Martin is visible for the remainder of this video. A
`
`screenshot from the surveillance system shows Ms. Gonthier just inside the
`
`exterior door at 2:46:47 P.M. Dkt. 175-4 at ¶ 20. This frame aligns with 1:37 on
`
`the video. Taken together, the video and screenshot show that Ms. Gonthier
`
`entered the hallway at about 2:46:43 P.M., exited the camera's view about
`
`2:46:51 P.M., and was never in this hallway at the same time as Mr. Martin.
`
`
`
`26d. The third video, Exhibit H, is 0:58 long. It shows another exterior
`
`door and a desk area. Ms. Gonthier enters the frame at 0:41 on the video, walks
`
`directly to the exterior door, and exits as the video ends at 0:58. Mr. Martin is
`
`never visible in this video. A surveillance screen shot time-stamped 2:47:41 P.M.,
`
`dkt. 175-4 at ¶ 23, aligns with 0:44 on the video. Taken together, the video and
`
`screenshot show that Ms. Gonthier entered the frame about 2:47:38 P.M., exited
`
`about 2:47:59 P.M., and was never in this location at the same time as
`
`Mr. Martin.
`
`
`
`26e. In sum, Mr. Martin and Ms. Gonthier were in the same building at
`
`the same time. But no video or photographic evidence shows them together. And,
`
`considering all the video and pictures, Ms. Gonthier was in the building and off
`
`camera only from about 2:46:51 P.M. (when she exited the video in Exhibit G)
`
`until about 2:47:38 P.M. (when she entered the video in Exhibit H). Therefore,
`
`she could have been with Mr. Martin for, at most, about 47 seconds.
`
`
`
`26f.
`
`In addition to the video and photographic evidence detailed above,
`
`Ms. Gonthier and Officer Richardson also attest definitively that the discussion
`
`Mr. Martin describes did not happen. Dkt. 175-1 at ¶ 5; dkt. 175-2 at ¶ 6.
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00078-JPH-MKK Document 180 Filed 03/27/25 Page 21 of 37 PageID
`#: 1923
`
`
`
`27. Mr. Martin's supplemental response does not contradict the
`
`defendants' evidence.
`
`
`
`27a. Mr. Martin asks the Court to question the authenticity and integrity
`
`of the surveillance video with no credible explanation for doing so. Dkt. 179 at
`
`2.
`
`
`
`27b. Mr. Martin states that the declarations filed by the defendants
`
`contain false statements, but he does not identify which statements are allegedly
`
`false. Id.
`
`
`
`28. The Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Martin's
`
`statements in the post-hearing affidavit are false, and that Ms. Gonthier did not
`
`make the statements or admissions Mr. Martin attributes to her. First, the Court
`
`approaches Mr. Martin's affidavit with skepticism, given that he created and
`
`submitted false evidence in this case and that his testimony at the hearing was
`
`not credible. Second, the picture and video evidence undermine Mr. Martin's
`
`affidavit. That evidence shows that Mr. Martin and Ms. Gonthier were not
`
`together long enough to have the expansive conversation that Mr. Martin
`
`describes in his affidavit. Accordingly, there is no need to have an additional
`
`evidentiary hearing to resolve the conflicting affidavit testimony. Cf. Scott v.
`
`Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380–81 (2007) ("When opposing parties tell two different
`
`stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no
`
`reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts
`
`for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment. . . . The Court of
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00078-JPH-MKK Document 180 Filed 03/27/25 Page 22 of 37 PageID
`#: 1924
`
`Appeals should not have relied on such visible fiction; it should have viewed the
`
`facts in the light depicted by the videotape.").
`
`
`
`V. Findings of Fact: History of Sanctions and Filing Restrictions
`
`
`
` 29. Mr. Martin has been sanctioned with filing restrictions for
`
`misconduct three times in the past: Twice by the U.S. District Court for the
`
`Northern District of Indiana, and once by this Court.
`
`
`
`30. Mr. Martin has also had at least three cases dismissed for being
`
`frivolous or malicious or for failing to state a plausible claim for relief. Therefore,
`
`he is permanently barred from proceeding without prepaying the filing fee, except
`
`in limited circumstances.
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`2009 Northern District Restriction
`
`
`
`31.
`
`In Martin v. York, the Northern District dismissed Mr. Martin's case
`
`and ordered that he may not file any new civil cases for two years without
`
`prepaying the full civil filing fee. Martin v. York, No. 1:09-cv-00332-JTM-RBC,
`
`dkt. 5 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 21, 2009).
`
`
`
`31a. The Court found that Mr. Martin "misrepresented his financial
`
`status in an attempt to deceive the court" and obtain leave to proceed without
`
`prepaying the filing fee. Id. at 1.
`
`
`
`31b. Specifically, the Court noted that Mr. Martin made a $350.00
`
`payment to satisfy the filing fee for one of his many pending cases only days
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00078-JPH-MKK Document 180 Filed 03/27/25 Page 23 of 37 Pa
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
