Donald Lee v. Brier Police Department, 684 F. App'x 666

Donald Morris Lee, a Washington state prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging constitutional violations related to his arrest/conviction, treatment in prison, denial of legal mail, property loss, and retaliation.
The district court dismissed the complaint under screening provisions for failing to state viable § 1983 claims; Lee appealed pro se.
Lee alleged false or improper actions tied to his arrest/conviction and named the judge and prosecutor; he also alleged denial of mail, deprivation of property, and retaliation (disciplinary infraction and cell transfer after filing a grievance).
The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and evaluated whether success on claims would imply invalidity of conviction, whether pleadings stated plausible § 1983 claims, and whether adequate postdeprivation remedies existed.
The court affirmed dismissals tied to the conviction, claims against judge/prosecutor, access-to-courts for mail denial, and due-process property claims; it vacated and remanded only the retaliation claim to permit possible amendment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Claims challenging arrest/conviction	Lee contends official actions violated his rights related to arrest/conviction	Success would imply invalidity of conviction/sentence	Dismissed: barred by Heck v. Humphrey because conviction not invalidated
Claims against judge and prosecutor	Judicial/prosecutorial actions violated § 1983 rights	Allegations insufficient to state a plausible § 1983 claim	Dismissed: failure to plead facts establishing § 1983 liability
Denial of legal mail / access-to-courts	Denial of mail prevented nonfrivolous legal claims	No actual injury shown; prison regulations justified by penological interests	Dismissed: plaintiff failed to show actual injury under Lewis; Turner applies to restrictions
Deprivation of property / due process	Property deprivation violated Fourteenth Amendment procedures	Washington provides adequate postdeprivation remedies	Dismissed: Hudson/ state-postdeprivation rule applies; remedies adequate
Retaliation for grievance filing	Lee claims disciplinary infraction and cell move were retaliatory after grievance	Allegations insufficiently detailed to state claim	Vacated & remanded for opportunity to amend: dismissal without leave premature; plausible retaliation may be pleadable

Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2007) (standard of review for dismissals under screening statutes)
Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 1998) (dismissal order review standard)
Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 2008) (appellate affirmance may rest on any record-supported ground)
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (§ 1983 claim barred if success would imply invalidity of conviction/sentence)
Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (9th Cir. 2010) (pro se pleadings construed liberally but must state plausible claims)
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (elements of § 1983 claim)
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) (actual injury requirement for access-to-courts claims)
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (prison regulations valid if reasonably related to penological interests)
Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) (unauthorized intentional deprivation of property does not violate due process where adequate postdeprivation remedies exist)
Wright v. Riveland, 219 F.3d 905 (9th Cir. 2000) (Washington provides adequate postdeprivation remedies)
Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of a prisoner retaliation claim)
Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245 (9th Cir. 1995) (pro se plaintiffs must be given notice and opportunity to amend unless amendment cannot cure defects)