James Hinkley v. Kirk Jessee, 689 F. App'x 536

Former Washington prisoner James Mark Hinkley sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging retaliation, Fourth Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and supervisory liability claims against multiple prison officials.
The district court granted summary judgment or dismissed several defendants and claims for failure to exhaust, lack of personal participation, lack of retaliatory motive, and failure to plead deliberate indifference.
Defendants addressed include Shatto, Ansorge, Allen (retaliation, searches, Eighth Amendment), Jessee (retaliation, exhaustion, Eighth Amendment), Knight and Shumate (supervisory liability), and Warner (personal participation).
Key legal issues on appeal: (1) whether actions were retaliatory or supported by legitimate correctional goals; (2) whether Hinkley properly exhausted administrative remedies or reasonably believed grievance process unavailable; (3) whether defendants personally participated or could be liable as supervisors; (4) whether search claims and asserted risks met Fourth or Eighth Amendment standards.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed the district court’s judgment in all respects.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Retaliation by Shatto, Ansorge, Allen	Hinkley contends disciplinary/search actions were retaliatory for his complaints/grievances	Actions were taken for legitimate correctional purposes, not retaliatory motive	Summary judgment for defendants — Hinkley failed to raise a genuine dispute of retaliatory motive or lack of legitimate goals
Retaliation by Jessee (exhaustion)	Hinkley argues administrative remedies were effectively unavailable due to threats/retaliation	Jessee argues Hinkley failed to properly exhaust available grievance procedures	Summary judgment for Jessee — Hinkley did not show proper exhaustion or that the grievance process was objectively unavailable
Supervisory liability (Knight, Shumate, Warner)	Hinkley claims supervisors are liable for constitutional deprivations under § 1983	Defendants argue lack of personal participation or required supervisory causation	Summary judgment/dismissal — no genuine dispute of personal participation or supervisory liability alleged
Fourth/Eighth Amendment claims (cell searches, deliberate indifference)	Hinkley alleges unlawful searches and Eighth Amendment risk/harm from defendants' conduct	Defendants contend prisoners have no Fourth Amendment privacy right in cells and conduct did not show deliberate indifference	Claims dismissed — Hudson bars Fourth Amendment privacy in cells; no facts show deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm

Glenn v. Washington County, 673 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for summary judgment in § 1983 appeals)
Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A)
Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc., 575 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2009) (appellate affirmance may rest on any record-supported basis)
Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262 (9th Cir. 2009) (elements of a prison retaliation claim)
Wood v. Yordy, 753 F.3d 899 (9th Cir. 2014) (speculation is insufficient to show retaliation)
Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. 1995) (plaintiff bears burden to show absence of legitimate correctional goals)
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2006) (PLRA requires proper exhaustion of administrative remedies)
McBride v. Lopez, 807 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2015) (showing that threats made grievance system unavailable requires actual and objectively reasonable belief)
Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2011) (standards for supervisory liability under § 1983)
Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2002) (personal participation required for § 1983 liability)
Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (U.S. 1984) (no Fourth Amendment privacy right in prison cells)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (deliberate indifference standard under the Eighth Amendment)