Anthony Herbert v. Claudia Balducci
678 F. App'x 471
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Anthony G. Herbert, pro se, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 raising claims while in King County detention (access-to-courts, restrictions on reading material and telephone access in disciplinary segregation, and denial of Alcoholics Anonymous’ "Big Book").
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants; Herbert appealed. The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed.
- Herbert alleged denial of access to law-library computer workstations and asserted municipal liability against King County.
- He challenged restrictions on reading materials and telephone access as punitive and not reasonably related to legitimate penological objectives.
- He claimed denial of the AA Big Book violated his Free Exercise rights and the Establishment Clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Access-to-courts for law-library computers | Herbert says he requested and was denied access to law-library computer workstations | Defendants say there is no evidence Herbert requested access or that officials denied it; no municipal policy caused the denial | Affirmed for defendants: Herbert failed to raise a genuine dispute that he requested and was denied access or that King County had a policy causing it |
| Municipal liability under § 1983 (Monell) | County is responsible for denial as an official policy/practice | No evidence of an official policy, practice, or custom causing the alleged denial | Affirmed: Herbert did not show a Monell policy, practice, or custom |
| Restrictions on reading material and phone access in disciplinary segregation | Herbert contends restrictions amounted to punishment and violated constitutional rights | Defendants argue restrictions were reasonably related to legitimate governmental objectives for detention/discipline | Affirmed: restrictions were reasonably related to legitimate objectives and not shown to be punitive |
| Denial of AA Big Book — Free Exercise / Establishment Clause | Denial substantially burdened religious practice and/or violated Establishment Clause | Defendants say denial did not substantially burden sincere religious exercise and did not violate Establishment Clause | Affirmed: Herbert failed to show a substantial burden on sincerely held beliefs or an Establishment Clause violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Guatay Christian Fellowship v. Cty. of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard of de novo review for summary judgment)
- Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (U.S. 1996) (elements of access-to-courts claim)
- Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740 (9th Cir. 1978) (individual participation required for § 1983 liability)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability requires policy/practice/custom)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (U.S. 1979) (pretrial detention restrictions permissible if reasonably related to legitimate objectives)
- Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. 1995) (plaintiff bears burden to show absence of legitimate correctional goals)
- Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 2008) (Free Exercise Clause implicated only when prison practice burdens sincerely held beliefs)
- Inouye v. Kemna, 504 F.3d 705 (9th Cir. 2007) (test for Establishment Clause in corrections context)
- Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009) (appellate courts generally do not consider issues raised first on appeal)