Lamont Shepard v. T. Quillen
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 19352
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Inmate Lamont Shepard reported that Officer Quillen used excessive force during an escort; Lieutenant Wise told Shepard he would be sent to administrative segregation (ASU) for reporting the officer and then transferred him that same day.
- Shepard spent about three months in ASU and sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for retaliation (first amendment) and excessive force; the jury later found for Quillen on excessive force in a separate memorandum disposition.
- The district court granted summary judgment and qualified immunity to Wise on the retaliation claim; the Ninth Circuit reviews whether a constitutional violation occurred and whether the right was clearly established.
- Shepard established the adverse-action and protected-conduct elements (placement in ASU and complaint about staff). The dispute centers on causation, chilling effect, and whether the ASU placement reasonably advanced penological goals.
- Wise relied on California regulation (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3335) authorizing immediate ASU placement where an inmate’s presence threatens safety, security, or an investigation; the court found genuine factual disputes (timing, form inconsistencies, statements by Wise) permitting a jury to infer retaliatory motive and pretext.
- The panel held Shepard raised triable issues of fact and that Wise is not entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity because established precedent bars abusing neutral procedures as a cover for retaliation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ASU placement after reporting staff misconduct was retaliation violating the First Amendment | Shepard: Wise placed him in ASU in direct response to his complaint, threatening and chilling complaints; timing and statements show retaliatory motive | Wise: He acted under § 3335 to protect safety and the integrity of the investigation; placement was mandatory/ nondiscretionary, not retaliatory | Court: Triable issues of fact exist on retaliatory motive and pretext; reversal of summary judgment for Wise |
| Whether the ASU placement chilled Shepard’s First Amendment rights | Shepard: ASU conditions are severe and more-than-minimal, so the threat chills complaints | Wise: ASU was protective and encourages complaints by separating complainant from accused | Court: ASU conditions and indefinite placement could chill a person of ordinary firmness; plaintiff met the chilling requirement |
| Whether ASU placement reasonably advanced legitimate penological goals | Shepard: No evidence ASU was necessary; alternatives (other housing) existed; the 114-D form is inconsistent/pretextual | Wise: § 3335 provides legitimate neutral penological justification (safety, security, investigation integrity); committee review endorsed placement | Court: Wise offered only generic justification; genuine factual disputes and lack of specific evidence of necessity make summary judgment inappropriate |
| Whether Wise is entitled to qualified immunity | Wise: No clearly established law put him on notice because he followed regulation § 3335; reasonable officers could believe conduct lawful | Shepard: Precedent (Bruce, Rhodes, others) clearly forbids using procedures as subterfuge to punish complaints; officer should have known | Court: Right against retaliatory use of neutral procedures was clearly established; factual disputes make qualified immunity inappropriate at summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262 (9th Cir. 2009) (prisoner retaliation standards and showing retaliatory motive)
- Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of inmate retaliation claim)
- Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283 (9th Cir. 2003) (officials may not use neutral procedures as a cover for retaliation)
- Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2012) (ASU placement is an adverse action)
- Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir. 2004) (placement in ASU can give rise to retaliation claim)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (qualified immunity framework permitting merits-first analysis)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (U.S. 2011) (clearly established law standard for qualified immunity)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (U.S. 1987) (objective legal reasonableness in qualified immunity analysis)