Michael Evans v. James Deacon
687 F. App'x 589
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Michael Evans, a prison inmate, sued multiple prison officials alleging (1) procedural due process violation for transfer to SRCI administrative segregation, (2) Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect against Greg Jones, and (3) First Amendment retaliation against Jose Olvera for filing a misconduct report after Evans sent a disrespectful grievance; he also sought leave to add many claims late in the case.
- District court dismissed the due process claim and the failure-to-protect claim, granted summary judgment to Olvera on the retaliation claim, and denied leave to file a supplemental complaint adding eight claims and seventeen defendants.
- Evans appealed the dismissals, summary judgment, and the denial of leave to amend.
- The Ninth Circuit evaluated qualified immunity for the transfer, the sufficiency of Eighth Amendment allegations, whether Olvera’s misconduct report was impermissible retaliation, and the district court’s discretion to deny late amendment.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the due process and failure-to-protect claims, reversed summary judgment for Olvera as to the December 2011 misconduct report, and affirmed denial of leave to amend; remanded for further proceedings only on the retaliation claim against Olvera.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether transfer to SRCI administrative segregation created a protected liberty interest requiring due process | Evans: transfer to allegedly atypical, indefinite housing deprived him of liberty without due process | Defendants: no clearly established liberty interest; qualified immunity applies | Court: Affirmed dismissal; not clearly established that such transfer alone created a Sandin liberty interest, so qualified immunity applies |
| Whether allegations state an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against Greg Jones | Evans: conditions posed substantial risk of serious harm and Jones was deliberately indifferent | Jones: complaint insufficient to show substantial risk of serious harm or deliberate indifference | Court: Affirmed dismissal; allegations insufficient to cross line from some risk to substantial risk of serious harm |
| Whether Olvera’s December 2011 misconduct report was impermissible retaliation for a protected grievance | Evans: misconduct report was retaliatory for his grievance to Captain Boston and did not advance legitimate penological goals | Olvera: enforcing rule against disrespectful language advances legitimate correctional goals; also argued grievance form used was not protected speech | Court: Reversed summary judgment for Olvera as to December 2011 report; Ninth Circuit held prohibiting disrespectful language in a grievance (to third parties) does not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal and grievance was protected speech |
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying leave to file a supplemental complaint late in litigation | Evans: should have been allowed to add claims/defendants | Defendants: amendment was untimely, would cause prejudice, and some claims would be futile | Court: Affirmed denial; no abuse of discretion given undue delay and futility (esp. to due process damages) |
Key Cases Cited
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (establishes atypical-and-significant-hardship test for liberty interests)
- Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (indefinite transfer to certain harsh conditions may implicate liberty interest when combined with other consequences)
- Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071 (qualified immunity analysis when liberty interest not clearly established)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (deliberate indifference standard for Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect)
- Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (conditions-of-confinement inquiry)
- Estate of Ford v. Ramirez-Palmer, 301 F.3d 1043 (clarifies substantial-risk threshold for Eighth Amendment claims)
- Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262 (retaliation: action must not reasonably advance legitimate correctional goal)
- Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 (elements of prisoner retaliation claim)
- Bradley v. Hall, 64 F.3d 1276 (prohibiting disrespectful language in grievances can be impermissible restriction)
- Jones v. Williams, 791 F.3d 1023 (prisoners have First Amendment right to seek redress outside formal grievance procedures)
- Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167 (clearly established right to seek redress pre-dating events)
- Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ’g, 512 F.3d 522 (standards for denying leave to amend for undue delay or futility)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (factors for granting or denying leave to amend)
- Bergerco, U.S.A. v. Shipping Corp. of India, 896 F.2d 1210 (record completeness and appellate review standard)