Jody Carr v. Higgens
700 F. App'x 598
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Jody R.O. Carr, an Idaho inmate, sued four IDOC employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging (a) that three officers (Hartnett, Fleming, Davidson) contaminated his food with feces in retaliation for grievances (First and Eighth Amendment claims), and (b) that Sergeant Higgins violated his due process and First Amendment rights by prolonged placement in restrictive/protective custody and by transfers.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; the district court granted summary judgment for all defendants and denied Carr leave to amend and appointment of counsel.
- Carr had a diagnosed C. difficile infection he attributed to ingesting feces; he submitted a concern form within 12 days but prison officials failed to process or collect his grievance forms.
- Defendants argued Carr failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA; they also argued a lack of personal participation and lack of evidence for the alleged food-contamination, and asserted qualified immunity for Higgins.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed summary judgment de novo and appeals court review of denials of leave to amend and appointment of counsel for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies for food-contamination claims | Carr timely tried to grieve the incident (concern form within 12 days) but prison officials prevented processing, making grievance unavailable | IDOC had a three-step grievance process requiring grievances within 30 days; Carr did not complete it | Court: Defendants met initial burden but Carr showed remedies were effectively unavailable; exhaustion requirement not a bar to claims against Hartnett, Fleming, Davidson |
| Merits / personal participation re: food contamination | Carr alleges officers fed or conspired to feed him feces | Defendants say no evidence of Hartnett or Davidson personal participation; challenge sufficiency of evidence for Fleming | Court: Summary judgment affirmed for Hartnett and Davidson (no personal participation evidence); reversed as to Fleming (genuine dispute exists whether she fed or conspired to feed Carr) |
| Higgins — Fourteenth Amendment (protective custody) / qualified immunity | Carr argues prolonged restrictive/protective custody violated due process | Higgins contends no clearly established right to process for unchallenged protective custody; prisoner has no right to particular placement/classification | Court: Qualified immunity applies; Higgins entitled to summary judgment on due process claim |
| Higgins — First Amendment retaliation (transfers) | Carr says transfers were retaliatory for grievances | Higgins says he lacked authority to effect transfers and did not take adverse action; no causal link shown | Court: Summary judgment for Higgins on retaliation claim affirmed |
| Leave to amend (add retaliation claim against Sergeant Mechtel) | Carr sought to amend within 21 days as of right and alleged a cognizable retaliation claim against Mechtel | District court denied leave in whole (screening required under PLRA) | Court: Abuse of discretion to the extent Carr sought to add the Mechtel retaliation claim — reversal and leave allowed; other proposed amendments properly denied |
| Appointment of counsel | Carr sought counsel; district court denied | Defendants opposed | Court: Denial vacated; Carr may renew request on remand (court makes no finding on exceptional circumstances) |
Key Cases Cited
- Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (en banc) (standard for de novo review of summary judgment and PLRA exhaustion framework)
- Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir.) (defendants carry initial burden to show available remedy; plaintiff must show remedy was effectively unavailable)
- Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (2016) (PLRA requires exhaustion of grievance procedures that are "capable of use")
- Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001) (scope of exhaustion under PLRA)
- Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2002) (§ 1983 requires personal participation for liability)
- Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262 (9th Cir. 2009) (elements of prisoner First Amendment retaliation claim)
- Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818 (9th Cir. 1997) (no constitutional right to placement at particular institution or security classification)
- Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2004) (standard for appointment of counsel in prisoner civil cases)