(PC) Battle v. Posadas, 2:10-cv-02135

Background

Plaintiff Battle, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Posadas, Harrison, Cameron, and Marsh in the Eastern District of California.
The court previously issued findings and recommendations on November 10, 2010 suggesting dismissal and providing an opportunity to object, which Battle did on November 23, 2010.
The court reviewed that Battle claimed legal mail was impeded or confiscated by Posadas and Harrison, with an incident report referencing non-legal mail and labeled as legal mail by staff.
The initial reasoning found no cognizable First Amendment violation because the alleged interference with legal mail was an isolated incident, not a pattern or practice, and found no due process claim regarding grievances against Cameron.
Battle objected, alleging a pattern and practice of opening inmate legal mail outside the inmate’s presence; the court vacated its November 10, 2010 findings and recommendations.
The court ordered Battle to file an amended complaint within 30 days, consolidating all factual allegations (original and new) into a single pleading and warning that failure to amend could lead to dismissal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether opening legal mail outside presence violated Battle's First Amendment rights	Battle asserts a pattern and practice of improper opening of legal mail.	Defendants contend the opening was an isolated instance not constituting a constitutional violation.	Plaintiff may state a cognizable claim if pattern is proven; findings vacated to permit amendment.
Whether failure to respond to inmate grievances implicates due process	Battle argues Cameron's inaction violated his due process rights.	There is no liberty interest in a particular grievance procedure under Ninth Circuit law.	No due process violation based on grievance processing alone.
Whether Battle must amend to proceed	Amendment should reflect both original and newly alleged facts in one pleading.	Amending is unnecessary if no cognizable claims exist.	Amended complaint required to proceed; must allege an affirmative link between each defendant and deprivation.
Whether the case can proceed with the existing claims after amendment	New allegations could establish a cognizable claim.	Original claims may be waived if not included in amended pleading.	Proceed only with a properly pleaded amended complaint incorporating all claims.

Key Cases Cited

Witherow v. Paff, 52 F.3d 264 (9th Cir. 1995) (prisoners have First Amendment right to mail; limitations on censorship)
Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (Supreme Court 1974) (censorship and interception of inmate correspondence; security-based limits)
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (Supreme Court 1987) (prison regulation must be reasonably related to legitimate penological interests)
Ex Parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546 (Supreme Court 1941) (prison officials may not review outgoing legal mail for legal sufficiency)
Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 1996) (incoming mail from courts is not considered legal mail; open issues about identification and handling)
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (Supreme Court 1974) ( prisoner rights to due process in disciplinary segregation and mail handling procedures)
Sherman v. MacDougall, 656 F.2d 527 (9th Cir. 1981) (procedural requirements related to prison administrative actions)
Stevenson v. Koskey, 877 F.2d 1435 (9th Cir. 1989) (isolated incidents of mail tampering not per se constitutional violation)
Muhammad v. Pritcher, 35 F.3d 1081 (6th Cir. 1994) (pattern or practice open question on opening confidential legal mail)
King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565 (9th Cir. 1987) (prisoners' rights and grievance process considerations (non-constitutional emphasis))
Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980) (no liberty interest in a particular grievance procedure; due process not implicated by processing failures)
May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164 (9th Cir. 1980) (no protected liberty interest in the grievance process)
Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740 (9th Cir. 1978) (established linking requirements for supervisory liability claims)