Nevada Department of Corrections v. Greene
648 F.3d 1014
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- After incidents involving weapons fashioned from inmate-owned typewriter parts, NDOC banned possession of typewriters in ESP in December 2006 and system-wide in May 2007.
- Inmates Greene, Browning, and Downs challenged the ban; the district court granted summary judgment for NDOC.
- Greene and Browning appealed; Downs filed post-judgment motions, then withdrew and appealed; cases were consolidated.
- NDOC sought declaratory relief to confirm its authority and constitutionality of the ban.
- The appeal presents standards for summary judgment, due-process, access-to-courts, and evidentiary rulings at summary judgment.
- The panel affirms the district court, holding the ban reasonably advances institutional safety and does not violate constitutional rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of the typewriter ban as retaliation | Greene and Browning contend the ban retaliates against inmate lawsuits | NDOC argues legitimate correctional goal of safety justifies the ban | Ban advances legitimate safety goal; no retaliation shown |
| Access to courts without injury due to the rule requiring typewritten briefs | Greene and Browning claim denial of access to Nevada Supreme Court | No actual injury shown; rule may not have caused prejudice | No violation; lack of actual injury defeats the claim |
| Admission of NDOC affidavits at summary judgment | Greene and Browning challenge hearsay/lack of foundation | Affidavits may be admitted if they contain personal knowledge and are admissible at summary judgment | District court did not abuse; affidavits properly admitted |
| Due Process challenge to property deprivation | Downs argues deprivation of his typewriter without proper process | NDOC acted within statutory authority; no pre-deprivation hearing required beyond notice and opportunity to comply | No due-process violation; policy within statutory authority; notice and opportunity to comply sufficient |
| Discovery and procedural posture before summary judgment | Downs alleges inadequate discovery | Court allowed later discovery; Downs did not pursue it | No abuse of discretion; discovery conducted was adequate under circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 (9th Cir. 2005) (retaliation requires action reasonably related to correctional goals)
- Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2001) (institutional security as legitimate correctional goal)
- Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) (actual injury required for access-to-courts claim)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (due-process rights of prisoners in disciplinary/seizure context)
- Vance v. Barrett, 345 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2003) (forfeitures/forfeiture-like actions require statutory authority and procedural protections)
- Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (property interests defined by state law)
- Ashton-Tate v. Ross, 916 F.2d 516 (9th Cir. 1990) (discovery-related handling at summary judgment)
- Oswalt v. Resolute Indus., Inc., 642 F.3d 856 (9th Cir. 2011) (de novo review of summary judgment; standards for evidence)
- Qualls v. Blue Cross of Cal., Inc., 22 F.3d 839 (9th Cir. 1994) (discovery and leverages in summary judgment)