McCullom V. Whent, et al.
Filing
59
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting 38 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(tlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/14/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
KEVIN LEE McCULLOM,
7
Case No.
15-cv-5718-TEH
Plaintiff,
8
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
v.
9
SEAN WHENT, et. al.,
10
Dkt. No. 38
Defendants.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
Plaintiff Kevin Lee McCullom, a detainee, filed this pro se
14
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
15
amended complaint (Docket No. 15) against Defendant Whittaker
16
with allegations that while working at Santa Rita Jail she
17
confiscated Plaintiff’s legal mail in one case and prevented mail
18
from being delivered in another case. 1
19
for summary judgment.
20
file an opposition but has failed to oppose the motion. 2
21
Regardless, the Court has still reviewed the motion for summary
22
judgment on the merits and for the reasons that follow,
This case proceeds under the
Defendant filed a motion
Plaintiff has been provided four months to
23
1
24
25
26
27
28
Service was ordered on another Defendant, T.S. Jacobs. Defendant
Whittaker’s attorney filed a notice that T.S. Jacobs does not
exist nor was employed at Santa Rita Jail. Docket No. 44.
Plaintiff was ordered to provide more information so this
Defendant could be served, but Plaintiff has failed to provide
any additional information.
2
Despite not filing an opposition in this case, Plaintiff has
continued to file motions in another case in this Court from
December 2016 to February 2017. See Docket Nos. 21-27 in
McCullom v. Ahern, Case No. 16-cv-0045 HRL.
1
Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.
2
I
3
During the relevant time, Plaintiff was incarcerated at
4
Santa Rita Jail. 3
5
been the mailroom supervisor at Santa Rita Jail since 2013.
6
Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”), Whittaker Decl. ¶ 1.
7
Defendant oversees four administrative units at the jail that
8
comprise 22 staff members.
9
responsibilities include accounting for the mailroom staff,
Am. Compl. at 1-3.
Defendant Whittaker has
Id. ¶¶ 2-4.
Defendant’s
delegating work assignments, resolving problems and addressing
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
grievances and appeals arising from mailroom operations.
12
2-5.
13
pieces of incoming and outgoing inmate mail a year.
14
Defendant does not personally open, inspect, read, or retain
15
inmates’ outgoing or incoming mail.
16
Id. ¶¶
The mailroom at Santa Rita Jail processes over 200,000
Id.
Id. ¶¶ 3, 20, 24.
Sorting inmate mail is a multi-step process.
Id. ¶ 7.
17
Incoming mail is picked up from the United States Post Office by
18
mailroom staff and brought to the jail for processing.
19
7(a).
20
each inmate addressee’s housing location and writes the
21
information on each envelope. Id. ¶ 7(a)-(b).
22
“contraband” includes items such as lipstick marks, stickers,
23
glitter, etc., which have been deemed hazardous per Santa Rita
24
Jail policy are returned to the sender, and staff indicates why
25
delivery was prevented
Id. ¶
After the mail is brought to the mailroom, staff looks up
Visible outer
Id. ¶ 7(c).
26
27
28
3
The following facts, unless otherwise noted, are undisputed.
Even though Plaintiff has not filed an opposition the Court has
reviewed his amended complaint.
2
1
Legal mail includes mail specifically marked as “legal” or
2
otherwise determined to be from an attorney or court; legal mail
3
is bundled without opening and marked with a “Legal Mail” stamp
4
which instructs opening “in the presence of inmate by the deputy
5
making the delivery” and requires inmate signature to confirm
6
delivery.
7
inspected for contraband (such as drugs, weapons and obscene
8
materials) and then re-bundled and sorted by housing unit for
9
inmate delivery.
10
Id. ¶ 7(f).
Nonlegal mail is automatically opened,
Id. ¶¶ 7(f)-(h).
When incoming mail is dropped off at the separate housing
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
units, mailroom staff picks up outgoing mail, which is brought to
12
the mailroom for processing.
13
mail is not opened or inspected unless deemed necessary due to
14
jail security.
15
deputy must confirm it is legal mail when picked up from the
16
inmate by signing his or her name and badge number on the back of
17
the envelope.
18
United States Post Office.
19
Id. ¶ 9.
Id. ¶¶ 9-11.
Outgoing nonlegal
Id. ¶ 10.
With respect to outgoing legal mail, a
Outgoing mail is then taken to the
Id. ¶ 11.
Plaintiff states that on October 22, 2015, his letter to the
20
California Supreme Court accusing an attorney of corruption was
21
confiscated.
22
nonlegal envelope addressed to Plaintiff from the United States
23
Postal Service arrived at the jail.
24
4 at 3.
25
envelope from Plaintiff and addressed to the California Supreme
26
Court.
27
send, though it appears the contents was lost.
28
envelope was marked as legal mail.
Am. Compl. at 1, 3.
On November 6, 2015, a
MSJ, Kennedy Decl, ¶ 10; Ex.
The content of the nonlegal envelope was a large manila
Ex. 4 at 3.
This was the envelope Plaintiff attempted to
3
Id.
This inner
Also included in the
1
nonlegal envelope from the United States Postal Service was a
2
letter from the postal service that stated that an empty wrapper
3
was found at the postal service sorting facility but the
4
accompanying mail was not found.
5
jail mailroom staff forged this letter from the postal service.
6
Am. Compl. at 2.
7
Id. at 3-8.
Plaintiff claims
On a separate occasion, Plaintiff states that a letter this
8
Court sent to Plaintiff was returned to the Court as
9
undeliverable in the case McCullom v. Bang, Case No. 15-cv-3363TEH.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
was returned to the Court as undeliverable on September 16, 2015.
12
Docket No. 14 in Case No. 15-cv-3363-TEH.
13
case was returned to the Court as undeliverable.
14
returned to the Court has the United States Postal Service yellow
15
return-to-sender sticker covering the addressee portion of the
16
envelope so it is not clear what the address stated and if it was
17
correct.
18
that was on the envelope.
19
filed three more actions in this Court against the same
20
defendants he had named in Case No. 15-cv-3363-TEH: McCullom v.
21
O’Malley, Case No. 16-cv-00899 (N.D. Cal. February 23, 2016);
22
McCullom v. Parker, Case No. 16-cv-01054 (N.D. Cal. March 2,
23
2016); McCullom v. Whent, Case No. 16-cv-01249 (N.D. Cal. March
24
14, 2016).
25
Am. Compl. at 3.
Id.
In Case No. 15-cv-3363-TEH, a Court order
No other mail in that
The mail
Santa Rita Jail does not use the yellow sticker
Whittaker Decl. ¶ 16.
Plaintiff later
Defendant in her role as supervisor did not personally
26
handle any of Plaintiff’s mail.
27
20-24.
Whittaker Decl. ¶¶ 12, 14, 16,
28
4
1
II
2
A
3
Summary judgment is properly granted when no genuine
4
disputes of material fact remain and when, viewing the evidence
5
most favorably to the nonmoving party, the movant is clearly
6
entitled to prevail as a matter of law.
7
Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Eisenberg v.
8
Ins. Co. of N. Am., 815 F.2d 1285, 1288-89 (9th Cir. 1987).
9
moving party bears the burden of showing there is no material
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c);
The
factual dispute.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
must regard as true the opposing party's evidence, if supported
12
by affidavits or other evidentiary material.
13
Eisenberg, 815 F.2d at 1289.
14
inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is
15
sought.
16
U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Intel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indem.
17
Co., 952 F.2d 1551, 1559 (9th Cir. 1991).
18
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 331.
Therefore, the Court
Id. at 324;
The Court must draw all reasonable
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475
The moving party bears the initial burden of identifying
19
those portions of the pleadings, discovery and affidavits which
20
demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.
21
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.
22
of production, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to
23
produce “specific evidence, through affidavits or admissible
24
discovery material, to show that the dispute exists.”
25
NME Hosps., Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1409 (9th Cir.), cert. denied,
26
502 U.S. 994 (1991); Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos.,
27
210 F.3d 1099, 1105 (9th Cir. 2000).
If the moving party meets its burden
28
5
Bhan v.
1
Material facts that would preclude entry of summary judgment
2
are those which, under applicable substantive law, may affect the
3
outcome of the case.
The substantive law will identify which
4
facts are material.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
5
242, 248 (1986).
6
cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment.
7
of San Diego, 84 F.3d 1162, 1168-70 (9th Cir. 1996), rev'd on
8
other grounds by Acri v. Varian Associates, Inc., 114 F.3d 999
9
(9th Cir. 1997).
Questions of fact regarding immaterial issues
Reynolds v. County
A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if
there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
verdict for the nonmoving party.
12
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
B
13
Prisoners enjoy a First Amendment right to send and receive
14
mail.
15
(citing Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407 (1989)).
16
prison, however, may adopt regulations or practices that impinge
17
on a prisoner's First Amendment rights as long as the regulations
18
are "reasonably related to legitimate penological interests."
19
See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987).
20
standard applies to regulations and practices concerning all
21
correspondence between prisoners and to regulations concerning
22
incoming mail received by prisoners from nonprisoners.
23
Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 413.
24
See Witherow v. Paff, 52 F.3d 264, 265 (9th Cir. 1995)
A
The Turner
See
Prison officials may institute procedures for inspecting
25
"legal mail," e.g., mail sent between attorneys and prisoners,
26
see Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 576-77 (1974) (incoming
27
mail from attorneys), and mail sent from prisoners to the courts,
28
see Royse v. Superior Court, 779 F.2d 573, 574-75 (9th Cir. 1986)
6
1
(outgoing mail to court).
2
"legal mail" outside the presence of the prisoner may have an
3
impermissible "chilling" effect on the constitutional right to
4
petition the government.
5
322, 325 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 11
6
(1972)); but cf. Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1094 (9th Cir.
7
1996), amended, 135 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir. 1998) (prison officials
8
may open and inspect mail to prisoner from courts outside
9
prisoner's presence because mail from courts, as opposed to mail
But the opening and inspecting of
See O'Keefe v. Van Boening, 82 F.3d
from a prisoner's lawyer, is not "legal mail").
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
officials must establish that legitimate penological interests
12
justify the policy or practice.
13
(mail policy that allows prison mailroom employees to open and
14
read grievances sent by prisoners to state agencies outside
15
prisoners' presence reasonable means to further legitimate
16
penological interests).
17
If so, prison
See O'Keefe, 82 F.3d at 327
Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the
18
courts.
19
Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977).
20
violation of the right of access to the courts, the prisoner must
21
prove that there was an inadequacy in the prison's legal access
22
program that caused him an actual injury.
23
350-55.
24
the inadequacy in the prison's program hindered his efforts to
25
pursue a non-frivolous claim concerning his conviction or
26
conditions of confinement.
See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350 (1996); Bounds v.
To establish a claim for any
See Lewis, 518 U.S. at
To prove an actual injury, the prisoner must show that
See id. at 354-55.
27
28
7
1
III
2
A
3
Plaintiff argues, with no support, that Defendant was
4
responsible for the letter to the California Supreme Court being
5
lost and for the order from the Court being returned to the
6
Court.
7
Plaintiff, Defendant has met her burden in demonstrating that
8
there is no material factual dispute and she is entitled to
9
prevail as a matter of law.
Even viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to
While Plaintiff did not file an
opposition, the Court still looked to Plaintiff’s amended
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
complaint, but Plaintiff has failed to present any evidence that
12
a material dispute exists.
13
It is undisputed that Defendant is the supervisor of the
14
jail mailroom and does not personally process the mail.
15
also undisputed that the mailroom processes approximately 200,000
16
pieces of mail each year.
17
that any jail mail worker, let alone Defendant, was responsible
18
for the first piece of mail being lost or the second piece of
19
mail being returned to the Court.
It is
Plaintiff has presented no evidence
20
Plaintiff stated in his amended complaint that Defendant
21
forged the letter and forms from the United States Postal Service
22
informing him of the lost mail and was also responsible for the
23
order from this Court being returned to the Court.
24
met her burden in showing that she did not fabricate the United
25
States Postal Service letter or forms and that the loss of his
26
mail by the post office had nothing to do with jail mailroom
27
staff.
28
Court order being returned to the Court.
Defendant has
She has also shown that she was not responsible for the
8
It does not appear that
1
the Court order ever reached the jail because it was returned
2
with a sticker used by the post office, not the jail.
3
has failed to present any evidence or arguments to refute
4
Defendant’s evidence.
5
Plaintiff
Conclusory statements, such as that an opponent is lying or
6
that documents have been fabricated without presentation of any
7
explanation of what portion of a statement or document is false
8
and without offering an explanation of one's view of the true
9
state of events are insufficient to raise a triable issue.
"When
the nonmoving party relies only on its own affidavits to oppose
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
summary judgment, it cannot rely on conclusory allegations
12
unsupported by factual data to create an issue of material fact."
13
Hansen v. United States, 7 F.3d 137, 138 (9th Cir. 1993).
14
Even if the post office letter was forged and the Court’s
15
order was improperly returned, Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that
16
Defendant was responsible for either act.
17
processes more than 200,000 letters each year and there are many
18
employees who process the mail.
19
that he was denied access to the courts by either act because he
20
has not demonstrated that he was pursuing a nonfrivolous claim
21
and that he suffered an actual injury.
22
notice that the letter to the California Supreme Court was lost,
23
he could have resent a new letter to that court.
24
Plaintiff’s federal action, Case No. 15-cv-3363-TEH, was
25
dismissed without prejudice after the Court’s order was returned,
26
Plaintiff could have moved to reopen the case.
27
that after these incidents with his mail, Plaintiff has continued
28
to litigate additional civil actions without problems.
The jail’s mailroom
Moreover, Plaintiff cannot show
9
When Plaintiff received
When
It is undisputed
1
Nor has Plaintiff shown that jail procedures violated his
2
First Amendment rights to send and receive mail or that there
3
were any violations of his legal rights due the Court order being
4
lost and returned.
5
demonstrates that he has been able to send and receive many legal
6
letters and that he opened new federal cases after these two
7
isolated incidents.
8
9
A review of Plaintiff’s other federal actions
Moreover, the Ninth Circuit has held that an isolated
instance or occasional opening of legal mail outside the inmate's
presence does not rise to the level of a constitutional
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
violation.
12
Cir. 1989); Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 351 (2d. Cir. 2003)
13
(isolated incident of mail tampering usually insufficient to
14
state claim); Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 431 (8th Cir.
15
1997) (isolated incident of opening legal mail without evidence
16
of improper motive or resulting interference with access to
17
courts or right to counsel does not support a claim).
18
these reasons, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment. 4
19
See Stevenson v. Koskey, 877 F.2d 1435, 1441 (9th
For all
B
20
"A District Court may properly on its own motion dismiss an
21
action as to defendants who have not moved to dismiss where such
22
defendants are in a position similar to that of moving defendants
23
or where claims against such defendants are integrally related."
24
Silverton v. Dep't of Treasury, 644 F.2d 1341, 1345 (9th Cir.
25
1981).
26
[plaintiff] cannot possibly win relief."
"Such a dismissal may be made without notice where the
Omar v. Sea–Land Serv.,
27
4
28
Because the Court has not found a constitutional violation, the
Court will not address the qualified immunity argument.
10
1
Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987).
2
in this regard includes sua sponte dismissal as to defendants who
3
have not been served and defendants who have not yet answered or
4
appeared.
5
44 F.3d 800, 802 (9th Cir. 1995) ("We have upheld dismissal with
6
prejudice in favor of a party which had not yet appeared, on the
7
basis of facts presented by other defendants which had
8
appeared."); Ricotta v. California, 4 F. Supp. 2d 961, 978–79
9
(S.D. Cal. 1998).
10
The court's authority
Columbia Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Ahlstrom Recovery,
Plaintiff only states that Jacobs was involved with the
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
letter that was sent to the California Supreme Court being lost
12
and with the order being returned to this Court.
13
allegations are similar to the conclusory allegations against
14
Whittaker which were discussed at length above and Jacobs is
15
similarly situated.
16
action for the reasons set forth above.
Jacobs is therefore dismissed from this
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
IV
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby orders as
follows:
1.
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 38)
is GRANTED.
2.
The Clerk shall close the file.
This order terminates
Docket No. 38.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 2/14/2017
26
________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge
27
28
These
G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.15\McCullom5718.sj.docx
11
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?