Plaintiff, however, has not presented sufficient evidence to support his claim that defendants were involved in his detention on December 22. Indeed, nothing in the record suggests that Mr. Quinlan or Mr. Miller ordered this third administrative detention.
In sum, the record before this Court is rife with genuinely disputed facts regarding defendants' intentions. The Court is convinced that a reasonable jury could conclude that both Mr. Quinlan and Mr. Miller acted with improper motives in restricting plaintiff's access to the press and in placing him in administrative detention.
For the foregoing reasons, and upon careful consideration of defendants' motion for summary judgment, the response and reply thereto, the entire record herein, and the applicable statutory and case law, the Court finds that plaintiff has identified "`affirmative evidence from which a jury could find that [he] has carried his . . . burden of proving'" that defendants Quinlan and Miller acted with a retaliatory motive. 199 F.3d at 502 (quoting Crawford-El, 523 U.S. at 600). While plaintiff's evidence is not conclusive, it clearly presents genuine issues of material fact, which are properly committed to a jury's consideration. It is the province of the jury to determine the credibility of plaintiff's claims and the intentions of defendants Quinlan and Miller. This case shall proceed to trial. Accordingly, it is by the Court hereby
ORDERED that defendants' motion for summary judgment  is DENIED.
An appropriate Pre-Trial Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion and Order.
In light of the Memorandum Opinion filed today denying in defendants' motion for summary judgment, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file by no later than March 14, 2003, a Joint Pretrial Statement in strict compliance with Local Rules 16.5(b) and 16.5(d)(1), (2) & (3). The parties are directed to make good faith efforts to agree on proposed voir dire questions and jury instructions; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that Local Rule 16.5(e) objections shall be filed by each party by no later than March 28, 2003; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that responses to objections shall be filed by April 11, 2003; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that replies shall be filed by April 22, 2003; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that there shall be no surreplies; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that in order to aid the Court in the expeditious resolution of pretrial issues, the following format shall be adhered to for the filing of objections, responses, and replies: (1) Each party shall convert each item listed in Rule 16.5 into a 2-column table, fill in the left side of the table with the party's statement, list, designation, etc., and then serve all counsel with a computer floppy disk of this submission. Counsel shall certify that this version of the Rule 16.5 submission is identical to the one filed with the Court. (2) Opposing counsel shall file its Rule 16.5(e) objection by responding to each item point-by-point and filling in the right side of the table. A blank space will indicate to the Court that no objection exists. Two examples are provided below:
Plaintiff's Proposed Voir Dire Defendants' Objections
1. Do any of you, members of 1. [Blank] [Indicates your family, or close friends agreement.] have a personal or business relationship with any members of the Court, plaintiff or his counsel, or defendant or his counsel?
Defendant's Witness List Plaintiff's Objections
1. John Marshall, Chief Justice 1. [Blank] [Indicates no of the United States Supreme objection.] Court. Chief Justice Marshall will testify to his opinion in Marbury v.Madison.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that parties are directed not to cross-reference documents or base objections on statements made in previous pleadings or papers without quoting the relevant section in full, and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that a Pretrial Conference is scheduled in this case for May 14, 2003 at 11:00 a.m.; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that a Trial date will be scheduled at the Pretrial Conference.