Rafael Mora-Contreras v. Colette Peters, 20-35476

Plaintiffs Rafael Mora-Contreras and Shane Staggs appealed the district court’s dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Oregon Department of Corrections employees.
Claims alleged: (1) Fifth Amendment due process violations from transfer to segregation; (2) Eighth Amendment challenge to extended solitary confinement; (3) First Amendment claims for compelled speech/refusal to be an informant and retaliation.
The operative second amended complaint failed to allege facts comparing segregation conditions to general population or that segregation imposed an "atypical and significant hardship."
Plaintiffs did not allege denial of Wolff procedural protections; fabrication-of-evidence theory was pleaded but cannot succeed absent a protected liberty interest.
The court concluded extended solitary confinement is not per se cruel and unusual under controlling precedent.
The defendants were granted qualified immunity on the First Amendment claims because the asserted rights (refusal to inform/ testify falsely) were not clearly established in this circuit at the time of the incidents.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether transfer to segregation implicated a protected liberty interest under the Fifth Amendment	Transfer to segregation imposed atypical and significant hardship requiring due-process protections	No protected liberty interest because complaint lacks facts comparing segregation to general population or showing atypical hardship	Dismissal affirmed: no protected liberty interest alleged; due-process claim fails
Whether extended solitary confinement violated the Eighth Amendment as inherently cruel and unusual	Extended solitary confinement is per se cruel and unusual punishment	Controlling Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent do not treat extended solitary as per se Eighth Amendment violation	Dismissal affirmed: plaintiffs’ per se challenge rejected
Whether forcing inmates to inform/lie or retaliating for refusal violates the First Amendment and whether defendants are immune	First Amendment protects a prisoner’s right not to serve as an informant and to refuse to provide false information; retaliation for exercising that right is actionable	Rights were not clearly established in this circuit at the time; defendants entitled to qualified immunity	Dismissal affirmed: qualified immunity applies because the asserted rights were not clearly established

Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (protected liberty interest inquiry requires showing conditions impose atypical and significant hardship)
Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 1996) (compare segregation conditions to general population in context-specific inquiry)
Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443 (9th Cir. 2000) (no protected liberty interest when complaint fails to allege segregation worse than other settings)
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (procedural protections required for deprivation of certain prison-based liberty interests)
Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2001) (fabrication of evidence can violate due process when a protected liberty interest is at stake)
Costanich v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 627 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2010) (fabricating evidence violates due process in civil investigations that could deprive protected interests)
Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678 (1978) (conditions of confinement precedent relevant to Eighth Amendment claims)
Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. 257 (2015) (context on solitary confinement in Eighth Amendment analysis)
Anderson v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310 (9th Cir. 1995) (Ninth Circuit precedent on conditions and punishment)
Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim in prison context)
Burns v. Martuscello, 890 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2018) (holding, as a matter of first impression, that prisoner has First Amendment right not to inform and to refuse to provide false information)