Paul Klein v. Brian Williams, Sr.
714 F. App'x 631
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Paul Scott Klein, a pro se prisoner, sued SDCC officials including Reid Kimoto under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming retaliation, conspiracy, due‑process, Eighth Amendment, equal protection, and related state law torts arising from (a) filing a sexual‑harassment grievance, (b) complaints about a faulty fire alarm, and (c) two disciplinary proceedings.
- District court dismissed Kimoto on qualified immunity grounds, granted summary judgment to most other defendants, held a bench trial on one due‑process claim, and denied several of Klein’s motions (discovery, counsel, leave to amend). Klein appealed pro se.
- On appeal the Ninth Circuit affirmed denial of discovery and appointment of counsel and affirmed dismissal without leave to amend as futile. It reversed dismissal of claims against Kimoto for retaliation and conspiracy and reversed dismissal of related state law claims.
- The court reversed summary judgment for some defendants on the retaliation claim tied to the sexual‑harassment grievance, but affirmed summary judgment for disciplinary‑based retaliation claims and for Eighth Amendment and PLRA emotional‑distress claims.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the bench‑trial verdict denying Klein procedural‑due‑process relief, finding service via oral reading and a timely, comprehensive hearing satisfied due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of discovery / appointment of counsel / leave to amend | Klein said he needed discovery from Kimoto, counsel, and leave to amend to cure defects | Denfendants/district court said Klein showed no specific discovery need, no exceptional circumstances for counsel, and amendment would be futile | Affirmed: discovery and counsel denials not an abuse; denial of leave to amend affirmed as futile |
| Qualified immunity & dismissal of Kimoto on federal claims | Kimoto retaliated and conspired with officials after Klein filed a sexual‑harassment grievance (threatened firing; disclosure of sexual orientation) | Kimoto argued no constitutional violation and asserted qualified immunity | Reversed as to retaliation and conspiracy claims (sufficient allegations of adverse action and clearly established law); equal‑protection dismissal affirmed; state claims remanded |
| Summary judgment for remaining defendants on retaliation, Eighth, state claims | Klein alleged conspiratorial disclosure, retaliation after alarm complaint and civil‑rights filing, and sexual harassment by chaplain and hazardous conditions from faulty alarm | Defendants argued disciplinary actions advanced legitimate penological goals; harassment and alarm claims were de minimis or lacked serious injury; emotional‑distress barred by PLRA; no class‑based discrimination | Mixed: reversed as to retaliation tied to sexual‑harassment grievance (survives summary judgment); affirmed for retaliation based on disciplinary proceedings, Eighth Amendment claims, PLRA emotional‑distress bar, and equal‑protection failure |
| Procedural due process at bench trial (Notice of Charges) | Klein contended he was not properly served with Notice of Charges before disciplinary hearing | Defendants showed charges were read to Klein and he received a comprehensive hearing within 30 days | Affirmed: court found oral notice and prompt, full hearing satisfied Fourteenth Amendment due process |
Key Cases Cited
- Laub v. United States Dep’t of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2003) (standard for abusing discovery denial)
- Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1986) (appointment of counsel in prisoner cases requires exceptional circumstances)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (qualified immunity two‑step analysis)
- Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of prisoner First Amendment retaliation claim)
- Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2012) (chilling element and harm in retaliation claims)
- Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262 (9th Cir. 2009) (threats as adverse action for retaliation)
- Avalos v. Baca, 596 F.3d 583 (9th Cir. 2010) (§ 1983 conspiracy elements)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference / sufficiently serious injury for Eighth Amendment)
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992) (Eighth Amendment excludes de minimis uses of force)
- Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Serv., 535 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for bench‑trial factual findings)