Leek v. Miller
698 F. App'x 922
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Kenneth Leek, a Kansas prisoner, sued prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming retaliation, interference with familial association (via lack of funds for postage/writing materials), and denial of procedural due process regarding access to his prison accounts.
- Prison policy required exhausting a cash account before using a forced savings account; officials refused to release forced-savings funds after Leek was fined and charged court fees, delaying processing of his request and leaving him short for purchases and postage.
- Shortly after filing grievances and this lawsuit, Leek was moved between cells, strip-searched during moves, and placed in a cell directly in front of a security camera; he alleged these moves were retaliatory.
- The district court dismissed the retaliation and association claims on initial screening under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim, and converted defendants’ motion on the due-process claim into one for summary judgment.
- On summary judgment the district court granted qualified immunity to defendants, holding it was not clearly established that inmates possess a protected property interest in prison account funds; the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory orders | Leek argued his notice (or letter construed as notice) supports review of earlier orders | Defendants argued appeal should be dismissed for not listing interim orders | Court denied dismissal: notice of final judgment confers jurisdiction over merged interlocutory orders |
| Retaliation (First Amendment) | Leek: cell moves, strip searches, camera placement occurred after grievances/lawsuit and were retaliatory | Defendants: moves were routine internal transfers; searches and camera placement were legitimate penological measures | Court affirmed dismissal for failure to plead retaliatory motive (no sufficient circumstantial proof beyond temporal proximity) |
| Familial association (First/14th Amendment) | Leek: lack of funds prevented mailing, infringing familial association | Defendants: Leek failed to show intent to interfere or that alternatives were unavailable | Court affirmed dismissal: no factual allegations defendants intended to interfere with a protected relationship; amendment would be futile |
| Procedural due process re: prison accounts / qualified immunity | Leek: withholding forced-savings funds deprived him of property without process | Defendants: law is not clearly established that prison account funds create a protected property interest; qualified immunity applies | Court affirmed summary judgment: Tenth Circuit law not clearly established that inmates have a protected property interest in prison accounts, so qualified immunity applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Gee v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178 (10th Cir. 2010) (retaliation and prisoners’ right of access to courts principles)
- Shero v. City of Grove, 510 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2007) (retaliation elements and burden)
- Peterson v. Shanks, 149 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir. 1998) (but-for causation in retaliation claims)
- Fogle v. Pierson, 435 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2006) (transfers/segregation may support retaliation claim when tied to threats)
- Farmer v. Perrill, 288 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir. 2002) (strip searches evaluated by legitimate penological interest)
- Cordova v. City of Albuquerque, 816 F.3d 645 (10th Cir. 2016) (elements for familial-association claim)
- Clark v. Wilson, 625 F.3d 686 (10th Cir. 2010) (applying Sandin atypical-and-significant-hardship framework to property-interest inquiries; overruling prior binding precedent recognizing trust-account property interest)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (atypical-and-significant-hardship test for protected interests)
- Burns v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 544 F.3d 279 (3d Cir. 2008) (holding a prison account assessment can constitute a protected property deprivation)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity framework)
- Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2007) (standard for § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) dismissals)