Curtis Downing v. Johnnie Graves, 668 F. App'x 295

Curtis Downing, a prisoner, appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims and dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Downing alleged First Amendment retaliation for filing grievances and acting as a prison law clerk; defendants disciplined him, transferred him, and conducted cell searches leading to charges of contraband and improper legal-fee charging.
The record shows specific disciplinary bases: charging an inmate $2,200 for legal services, possession of another inmate’s legal papers, abusing the grievance process, and contraband found in a cell search; transfers were said to address safety concerns.
Downing challenged the procedural fairness of the disciplinary hearing and asserted a denial of access to courts based on library policy changes.
The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on retaliation, due process, and related claims; dismissed the access-to-courts claim under § 1915(e)(2). The Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
First Amendment retaliation	Downing: disciplinary actions and transfer were retaliatory for grievance activity and law-clerk work	Defendants: actions were supported by evidence and motivated by legitimate penological reasons (discipline, safety, random searches)	Affirmed for defendants; no genuine issue of retaliatory motive or lack of legitimate penological purpose
Chilling of speech standard	Downing: his rights were chilled despite continuing to file grievances	Defendants: continued filings show no chilling	Court: applied objective chilling standard but found harmless error because causation and penological justification lacking; claim fails
Procedural due process in disciplinary hearing	Downing: hearing defective	Defendants: hearing complied with Wolff requirements (advance notice, opportunity to prepare, statement of evidence, witness choice)	Affirmed for defendants; due process satisfied
Access to courts (library policy)	Downing: library policy changes deprived him of meaningful access and caused prejudice to litigation	Defendants: Downing was able to file this § 1983 suit and showed no actual prejudice to litigation	Affirmed for defendants; no actual injury to access-to-courts right shown

Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 (9th Cir.) (elements of prisoner First Amendment retaliation claim)
Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262 (9th Cir.) (objective standard for chilling inquiry)
Shaw v. Murphy, 532 U.S. 223 (prison officials may regulate prison law-clerk activity)
Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802 (9th Cir.) (legitimate penological reasons for prisoner transfers)
Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (cell searches and prison security authority)
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (due process standards for prison disciplinary proceedings)
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (access-to-courts requires actual prejudice to nonfrivolous litigation)