Lorenzo Gino Sandoval, V Cheryl L. Sullivan
49001-3
| Wash. Ct. App. | Oct 24, 2017Background
- In 2010 Lorenzo Sandoval, incarcerated at Stafford Creek, had incoming/outgoing mail screened under DOC Policy 450.100 after staff discovered attempted unauthorized correspondence with another inmate (Eddie Shamp) via a third party and evidence he accepted payment for legal assistance.
- DOC restricted multiple pieces of Sandoval’s mail (including legal materials and money orders), initiated an investigation, and Sullivan ordered a cell search; officers recovered Shamp’s legal documents from Sandoval’s cell.
- Sandoval pled guilty to a reduced mail-related infraction; other infractions were dismissed. He signed a property disposition form agreeing to have Shamp’s legal documents held pending grievances/appeals.
- Sandoval sought return of money orders to pay fees for an unrelated appeal; DOC required pre-franked envelopes for outgoing mail and provided indigent postage credits, which Sandoval did not supply; his separate appeal was later dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Sandoval sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of procedural due process (notice, withholding legal documents and money), denial of meaningful access to courts, Eighth Amendment calculated harassment (cell search), and First Amendment retaliation; the trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, and Sandoval appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inadequate notice of mail restrictions | Sandoval: Sullivan’s erroneous dates on the infraction report show he never received restriction notices for five items | Defendants: Record shows Sandoval received notices for each restricted piece despite date error; no prejudice to ability to protest | Court: No due process violation — Sandoval got the notices and had opportunity to protest |
| Withholding of another inmate’s legal documents | Sandoval: Defendants unlawfully restricted/withheld Shamp’s legal papers, depriving process and access | Defendants: Sandoval signed property disposition agreeing to have documents held pending grievances/appeals; policy bars possession of another’s legal papers outside law library | Court: Sandoval waived claim by agreeing to hold; no genuine issue of fact that withholding violated due process |
| Withholding money orders / access to courts | Sandoval: Withheld money orders prevented payment of clerk’s fees, causing dismissal of unrelated appeal (denial of meaningful access) | Defendants: DOC required pre-franked envelopes or indigent postage (available); Sandoval failed to provide envelopes; post-deprivation grievance available; indigency procedures could have funded filings | Court: No causation shown — Sandoval had means (or procedures) to obtain filing; post-deprivation remedies adequate; access claim fails |
| Calculated harassment (Eighth Amendment) | Sandoval: Cell was ransacked during search, showing malicious harassment related to assisting Shamp | Defendants: Search was conducted under DOC policy to recover contraband/legal documents; no evidence of ransacking or malicious conduct | Court: No evidence cell was ransacked or that search was malicious; claim fails |
| Retaliation for assisting other inmates (First Amendment) | Sandoval: Restrictions and sanctions were retaliatory for assisting Shamp with legal work | Defendants: Actions enforced DOC Policy 590.500 (only allowed possession of another’s legal papers in law library); policy serves legitimate penological goals (security, contraband control) | Court: Policies and enforcement reasonably advanced penological goals; no genuine issue of fact for retaliation |
Key Cases Cited
- Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974) (procedures required when prison withholds inmate mail)
- Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) (overruling on other grounds; related to mail and prisoner regulations)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) (negligent/unauthorized deprivation of inmate property does not violate due process if adequate post-deprivation remedies exist)
- Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (1986) (Eighth Amendment: force/harassment must be malicious or sadistic, not reasonable for discipline)
- Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977) (inmates have right of meaningful access to courts)
- Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) (access-to-courts claim requires showing of actual injury)
- Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2011) (prisoner access-to-courts principles; need for actual injury)
- Nevada Dept. of Corrections v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2011) (active interference and actual injury standard for access claims)
- Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527 (9th Cir. 1985) (prisoners’ First Amendment right to assist other inmates with legal matters)
- Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483 (1969) (recognition of inmates’ legal-assistance rights)
- Shaw v. Murphy, 532 U.S. 223 (2001) (limits on inmate legal-assistance claims under the First Amendment)
- Livingston v. Cedeno, 164 Wn.2d 46 (2008) (state case upholding DOC’s authority to restrict inmate receipt of public records under security policies)