Joseph Antonetti v. E. McDaniels
21-16687
| 9th Cir. | Mar 23, 2022Background:
- Joseph Antonetti, a Nevada state prisoner, appealed pro se from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit challenging confinement in administrative segregation and his security threat group (STG) classification.
- Antonetti asserted due process violations regarding placement and continued segregation (including based on STG status) and a First Amendment retaliation claim tied to his segregation.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, denied Antonetti’s motions to compel, for reconsideration, and for additional discovery time, and denied appointment of counsel; it also declined relief to block an alleged transfer.
- The court below found any claim based on the initial STG classification was time-barred and that Antonetti failed to show deprivation of required procedural protections or a causal link for retaliation.
- On appeal the Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed: due process and retaliation claims failed on the merits or as time-barred; procedural denials were within the district court’s discretion; the TRO issue was moot; appointment of counsel denied.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due process for placement/continued administrative segregation | Antonetti: denied required procedural protections and wrongfully confined (including STG-based segregation) | Defendants: provided necessary procedures; no protected liberty interest or atypical hardship | Summary judgment for defendants; no genuine dispute of due process denial or protected liberty interest |
| Timeliness of claim challenging initial STG classification | Antonetti: challenges initial STG classification | Defendants: claim barred by Nevada two-year statute; accrued when Antonetti knew injury | Claim time-barred; summary judgment affirmed |
| First Amendment retaliation (segregation as retaliatory) | Antonetti: segregation was retaliatory for protected conduct | Defendants: no evidence adverse action was because of protected conduct | Summary judgment for defendants; no triable retaliation claim |
| Denials of reconsideration, discovery motions, and continuance for more discovery | Antonetti: sought reconsideration, to compel discovery, and more time to oppose summary judgment | Defendants: motions procedurally deficient; continuance requirements unmet; district court acted within discretion | Denials affirmed as not an abuse of discretion |
| TRO to prevent transfer and appointment of counsel | Antonetti: sought TRO to stop transfer and requested counsel | Defendants: TRO moot; appointment unnecessary | TRO moot; appointment of counsel denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2004) (standard of review for §1983 summary judgment appeals)
- Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080 (9th Cir. 1986) (due process protections for placement and continuation in administrative segregation)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (liberty interest requires an "atypical and significant hardship")
- Rosales-Martinez v. Palmer, 753 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 2014) (state personal-injury statute of limitations governs §1983 claims)
- Lukovsky v. City & County of San Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2008) (federal accrual rule: claim accrues when plaintiff knows or should know of injury)
- Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262 (9th Cir. 2009) (elements required to prove prisoner retaliation under the First Amendment)
- Tatum v. City & County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2006) (requirements for continuance to obtain additional discovery under Rule 56)
- Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732 (9th Cir. 2002) (district court's broad discretion to permit or deny discovery)