85 F. Supp. 3d 1115
N.D. Cal.2015Background
- Plaintiff, a long-term SHU inmate and validated Mexican Mafia member, sued PBSP IGI/ISU officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law for alleged retaliation, conspiracy, and related misuses of mail, disciplinary proceedings, property seizure, and a cell search that allegedly interfered with his litigation.
- Key disputed incidents span 2007–2012 and include multiple stopped or delayed incoming/outgoing letters, withholding of prisoner declarations, issuance/approval of an RVR for "promoting gang activity," a cell search on Dec. 16, 2011 that resulted in confiscation and delayed return of legal papers, and failure to notify plaintiff of a court-ordered trust seizure.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing in relevant part nonexhaustion, statute-of-limitations, lack of evidence of retaliatory motive, legitimate penological reasons for actions, and qualified immunity. Plaintiff opposed and later had counsel appointed for settlement/trial-stage representation.
- The court viewed facts in plaintiff’s favor for summary-judgment purposes, granted summary judgment for defendants on most mail-related and similar retaliation claims for lack of non-speculative evidence of retaliatory motive or because of exhaustion/timeliness failures.
- The court denied summary judgment on claims arising from (1) the Dec. 16, 2011 cell search/confiscation/retention of legal materials (retaliation, conspiracy, supervisory liability as to Frisk), and (2) issuance/approval of the RVR (retaliation and related supervisory/conspiracy issues as to D. Barneburg and Short), finding genuine disputes of material fact and that qualified immunity did not bar these claims.
- State-law tort claims accruing before Nov. 9, 2009 were dismissed as untimely under the CTCA; remaining state claims surviving summary judgment proceed. The case was referred to magistrate for settlement and administratively stayed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of specific mail claims (Feb 20/Sept 20/Nov 2007) | Plaintiff conceded or did not exhaust grievances for those incidents | No administrative record of grievances; nonexhaustion bars suit | Claims for those three incidents dismissed for failure to exhaust |
| Statute of limitations/timeliness for pre-2007 events | Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed some older claims; others he contended were timely or not intended as claims | Events before 2007 barred by limitations / CTCA deadlines for state claims | Claims arising before 2007 dismissed without prejudice; state-law claims accruing before Nov 9, 2009 dismissed as untimely under CTCA |
| First Amendment retaliation (multiple mail stops/delays, withholding declarations, most RVRs and confiscations) | Stops/delays and other acts were motivated by retaliation for filing Quiroz I, grievances, declarations, and staff complaints | Actions were based on legitimate penological reasons (third‑party/drop‑box mail rules, gang‑related content, contraband rules); lack of evidence defendants knew of protected conduct; timing and speculation insufficient | Summary judgment granted for defendants on nearly all mail‑related/delay/withholding claims for lack of non‑speculative causal evidence or legitimate penological justification; but denied as to (a) RVR issuance/approval by D. Barneburg (genuine issue of pretext/motive) and (b) cell search/confiscation/retention (Dec 16, 2011) (genuine issue of retaliatory motive and harm/chill) |
| Conspiracy and supervisory liability | Plaintiff alleges coordinated plan among IGI/ISU officers and supervisors to retaliate and obstruct litigation | Defendants: no underlying constitutional violation for many acts; no specific facts showing agreement or supervisors’ deliberate indifference | Conspiracy claims dismissed where no underlying constitutional violation; conspiracy and supervisory claims survive as to (1) cell search/confiscation/retention (Frisk and participating officers) and (2) RVR approval/discipline (Short and D. Barneburg) because material fact disputes permit inference of agreement/supervisory involvement |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard; "genuine issue" and materiality)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (moving party’s summary judgment burden)
- Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of prisoner First Amendment retaliation claim)
- McCollum v. California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 647 F.3d 870 (9th Cir. 2011) (circumstantial evidence needed to show retaliatory motive)
- Corales v. Bennett, 567 F.3d 554 (9th Cir. 2009) (defendant knowledge requirement for retaliation inference)
- Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283 (9th Cir. 2003) (neutral processes and penological justifications do not automatically defeat retaliation claims where motive issue exists)
- Wood v. Yordy, 753 F.3d 899 (9th Cir. 2014) (speculation insufficient to show retaliation)
- Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. 1995) (deference to prison officials; timing alone usually insufficient to show retaliation)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity standard)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity framework)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) (legitimate penological interests in searches and seizures in prison)
- Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (civil conspiracy under § 1983 requires underlying constitutional violation)
- Mendocino Environmental Center v. Mendocino County, 192 F.3d 1283 (9th Cir. 1999) (proof of conspiracy may be inferred from circumstantial evidence)