Marlon Blacher v. B. Dieball
700 F. App'x 744
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Marlon Blacher, a California state prisoner, brought a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging disciplinary proceedings and related conduct by prison officials.
- District court dismissed his complaint for failure to state claims; Blacher appealed pro se to the Ninth Circuit.
- Blacher asserted multiple constitutional claims against officers including Dieball and Valenzuela arising from an administrative rule violation and disciplinary punishment.
- Claims included procedural due process, First Amendment retaliation, Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference, Equal Protection (race discrimination), conflict of interest, double jeopardy, and assertions that punishment amounted to slavery/involuntary servitude.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal de novo and evaluated whether Blacher alleged plausibly protected liberty interests or required mental-state elements for each claim.
- The panel affirmed the district court in full, rejecting several peripheral arguments as meritless or forfeited on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due process (Dieball) — protected liberty interest | Blacher argued disciplinary sanction violated due process | Dieball argued sanction did not create a protected liberty interest or atypical hardship | Dismissed — no liberty interest under Sandin |
| First Amendment retaliation | Blacher claimed Dieball punished him for protected expression | Dieball maintained actions served legitimate penological goals | Dismissed — plaintiff failed to allege retaliation beyond justified institutional objectives |
| Eighth Amendment — deliberate indifference | Blacher alleged risk of serious harm from official conduct | Dieball argued no subjective knowledge or disregard of substantial risk | Dismissed — no plausible allegation of deliberate indifference (Farmer standard) |
| Equal Protection (race) | Blacher alleged discrimination based on race | Dieball argued absence of intent to discriminate or protected-class animus | Dismissed — no plausible facts showing purposeful race-based discrimination |
| Due process (Valenzuela) — grievance procedure | Blacher claimed denial of grievance process violated due process | Valenzuela argued inmates have no standalone constitutional right to a specific grievance procedure | Dismissed — grievance process is not a protected liberty interest |
| Conflict of interest / other claims (double jeopardy; slavery/involuntary servitude) | Blacher claimed conflicts, double jeopardy, and that punishment was involuntary servitude | Defendants argued these claims lack legal basis in prison disciplinary context | Dismissed — claims implausible or foreclosed by precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (due process inquiry into protected liberty interests)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (deliberate indifference standard)
- Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108 (elements of First Amendment retaliation in prison context)
- Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrs. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114 (intent/purpose required for Equal Protection § 1983 claims)
- Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850 (no constitutional right to a specific grievance procedure)
- Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (pleading standard for pro se litigants; plausibility requirement)
- Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071 (due process protections attach only when a protected liberty interest is implicated)
- United States v. Brown, 59 F.3d 102 (double jeopardy does not attach to prison disciplinary proceedings)
- Draper v. Rhay, 315 F.2d 193 (no federal right for a state prisoner to refuse work after conviction)