Kevin Johnson v. R. Robinson
692 F. App'x 371
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Kevin Bruce Johnson, a California state prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming he was misclassified as a sex offender and that the classification violated his constitutional rights.
- The district court dismissed or granted summary judgment on various claims brought against prison officials (Robinson, King, and Jordan). Johnson appealed pro se.
- The district court concluded Johnson failed to exhaust administrative remedies as to claims against Robinson and that he had not shown exhaustion was effectively unavailable.
- The district court found Johnson’s allegations did not establish a protected liberty interest or atypical and significant hardship from the classification, rejecting due process claims against King and Jordan.
- The court also concluded the classification alone did not constitute Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment and that Johnson failed to plead an equal protection violation (no protected-class allegation or similarly situated comparator shown).
- The district court denied leave to amend as futile; the Ninth Circuit affirmed and granted Johnson’s motion to file a supplemental reply brief for the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to exhaust administrative remedies | Johnson contends he exhausted or that remedies were unavailable | Robinson asserts Johnson did not properly exhaust required prison grievance steps | Affirmed for Robinson: no genuine dispute of proper exhaustion or effective unavailability |
| Due process — protected liberty interest | Misclassification as sex offender deprived Johnson of liberty without process | King/Jordan: classification did not create atypical and significant hardship | Affirmed: no protected liberty interest under Sandin framework |
| Eighth Amendment — cruel and unusual punishment | Classification itself inflicted punishment amounting to Eighth Amendment violation | Defendants: misclassification alone does not inflict Eighth Amendment harm | Affirmed: classification alone insufficient to state Eighth Amendment claim |
| Equal protection | Johnson claims disparate treatment based on classification | Defendants: no allegation of protected-class discrimination or similarly situated comparators | Affirmed: pleading failed to show class-based or "class of one" violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (exhaustion requires proper use of administrative process)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (liberty interest analysis: atypical and significant hardship)
- Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237 (misclassification alone not Eighth Amendment pain)
- Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834 (grievance sufficiency when rulebook silent)
- Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813 (circumstances for excusing exhaustion)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (standards for leave to amend in pro se cases)