Shaun Darnell Garland v. Charlie Hughes
2:13-cv-06574
C.D. Cal.Sep 11, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Shaun Darnell Garland, a pro se state prisoner at CSP-LAC, sued Correctional Lieutenant Charlie Hughes under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for placement in administrative segregation on Aug 27, 2011; Jan 26, 2012; and Mar 3, 2012, alleging First Amendment retaliation and Eighth Amendment cruel-and-unusual-punishment claims.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment arguing the claims were either unexhausted (Mar 3, 2012 incidents) or meritless (retaliation and Eighth Amendment challenges to each segregation).
- For the Mar 3, 2012 segregation, prison records showed Garland filed a first-level appeal that was screened out as illegible or not an original under Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15 § 3084.6(b)(10); no third-level decision exists.
- For Aug 27, 2011, an anonymous note (a “kite”) implicated Garland’s cellmate in threats to a sergeant; Hughes ordered searches and administrative segregation to protect staff and preserve the investigation. Garland asserted the kite was fabricated and that segregation impeded his pending litigation.
- For Jan 26, 2012, Garland reported an assault by an officer and Hughes ordered segregation pursuant to CDCR policy to protect the inmate and preserve investigation; Garland was segregated one day. Plaintiff produced sign-in sheets attempting to show the officer was not on duty.
- The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment in full: Claims One–Four (Aug 2011 and Jan 2012 incidents) dismissed with prejudice; Claims Five–Six (Mar 2012) and state-law false imprisonment claims dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust / lack of supplemental jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion for Mar 3, 2012 (Claims Five & Six) | Garland says he filed a March 7, 2012 grievance that was improperly screened out (making remedies effectively unavailable). | Fordham (appeals coordinator) shows the March 7 grievance was screened out as illegible/not original and no further appeals were filed. | Court: No effective unavailability; grievance properly screened under § 3084.6(b)(10). Claims Five & Six dismissed without prejudice for non-exhaustion. |
| Retaliation re Aug 27, 2011 segregation (Claim One) | Garland contends the kite was a pretext and Hughes retaliated to impede pending lawsuits/grievances. | Hughes adduces the anonymous note linking cellmate to threats and ordered segregation to protect staff and permit investigation. | Court: Segregation reasonably advanced legitimate penological goals (safety/investigation); Garland’s evidence speculative/conclusory. Claim One dismissed with prejudice. |
| Eighth Amendment re Aug 27, 2011 (Claim Two) | Garland alleges the segregation itself was cruel and unusual. | Hughes: administrative segregation alone, without other conditions, is not an Eighth Amendment violation. | Court: Mere placement in administrative segregation is not Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment. Claim Two dismissed with prejudice. |
| Retaliation and Eighth re Jan 26, 2012 (Claims Three & Four) | Garland argues segregation followed his complaint about officer misconduct and was unnecessary/retaliatory. | Hughes: segregation followed Garland’s report of being assaulted; CDCR policy requires removing complainant to protect him and preserve investigation. | Court: Segregation advanced legitimate penological interests (safety/investigation); no genuine dispute that it was retaliatory or cruel. Claims Three & Four dismissed with prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (PLRA requires exhaustion even if administrative remedies cannot award money damages)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (PLRA requires ‘‘proper’’ exhaustion and compliance with procedural rules)
- Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (exhaustion applies to all inmate suits about prison life)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (exhaustion is an affirmative defense; inmates need not plead exhaustion)
- Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (procedures for summary judgment on PLRA exhaustion defense)
- Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813 (improper screening can render remedies effectively unavailable)
- Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 (elements of prison First Amendment retaliation claim)
- Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460 (administrative segregation alone not Eighth Amendment violation)
- Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283 (courts must look beyond neutral procedures where there is evidence they are a pretext for retaliation)
- Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813 (institutional security is legitimate penological interest)