Kenneth Packnett v. Wingo, 688 F. App'x 419

Plaintiff Kenneth Jerome Packnett, a California state prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his First Amendment rights relating to incoming legal mail and retaliation, among other claims.
Key claims: (1) prison staff opened attorney-designated legal mail outside his presence or mishandled confidential correspondence; (2) defendants retaliated against him by mishandling mail and conducting a retaliatory cell search; (3) defendants failed to process grievances properly; and (4) discovery and sanction-related motions by Packnett were denied.
The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on all claims and denied Packnett’s motions to compel discovery and for sanctions.
Packnett appealed pro se; the Ninth Circuit reviewed exhaustion and summary judgment de novo and affirmed.
The court held Packnett failed to produce evidence that legal mail was opened outside his presence, that defendants acted with a retaliatory motive, or that his grievances adequately exhausted administrative remedies for the cell-search claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Handling of legal mail (First Amendment)	Packnett: legal mail was opened outside his presence or confidential correspondence mishandled	Defendants: mail procedures complied with rules; no evidence mail was opened improperly	Summary judgment for defendants — Packnett failed to raise a genuine dispute that legal mail was opened outside his presence or mishandled
Retaliation related to legal mail	Packnett: defendants retaliated against him by interfering with legal mail	Defendants: actions were not motivated by retaliation; routine administration/security reasons	Summary judgment for defendants — no evidence of retaliatory motive; plaintiff did not meet causation/retaliation elements
Retaliatory cell search / Exhaustion	Packnett: cell search was retaliatory and grieved	Defendants: grievance did not properly exhaust/alert officials to the claim	Summary judgment for defendants — Packnett’s grievance did not properly exhaust administrative remedies
Grievance-process claim & discovery/sanctions	Packnett: denial or mishandling of grievances and discovery misconduct warrant relief	Defendants: no constitutional right to a specific grievance procedure; Packnett failed to meet confer rule and show misconduct	Summary judgment/denials affirmed — no constitutional entitlement to specific grievance procedures; motions denied for failure to meet-and-confer and failure to show misconduct

Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (prison officials may require legal correspondence be marked to receive special handling)
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (administrative remedies must be properly exhausted)
Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of a prison-retaliation claim)
Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262 (9th Cir. 2009) (protected conduct must be a substantial or motivating factor for retaliation)
Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1999) (temporary, reasonable mail delays related to security do not violate First Amendment)
Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2011) (standards for supervisory liability under § 1983)
Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850 (9th Cir. 2003) (inmates lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific grievance procedure)
Reyes v. Smith, 810 F.3d 654 (9th Cir. 2016) (a grievance suffices if it alerts prison to the nature of the wrong)
Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2004) (summary judgment standard in § 1983 cases)
Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2015) (standard on exhaustion)
Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732 (9th Cir. 2002) (standard of review for discovery disputes)
Winterrowd v. Am. Gen. Annuity Ins. Co., 556 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2009) (standard for sanctions review)