Chyatte v. Montana Department of Corrections et al

Filing 33

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in full. Count III of Chyatte's Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that claims against the Montana Depart of Corrections and Montana State Prison and all official capacity c laims for money damages are DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the parties' joint stipulation to dismiss Count II of Chyatte's Complaint is GRANTED and Count II IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Copy mailed to Chyatte. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 10/6/2016. (DED, )

~~

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
c,,_w_ OcllJ6' ~7"
HELENA DIVISION
"'l-i:
<J
(),~~

<'~

~oP~"'>.·
"~.fio cyc
% .,,~,,~o"'l'f
CV 16--42-H-DLC-JTJ

DOUGLAS JOSEPH CHYATTE,
Plaintiff,

ORDER
vs.
MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
United States Magistrate Judge John T. Johnston entered his findings and
recommendations in this case on August 5, 2016, recommending that Count III of
Plaintiff Douglas Joseph Chyatte's ("Chyatte") Complaint be dismissed for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and that Defendants Montana
Department of Corrections and Montana State Prison be dismissed due to
immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. Chyatte timely objected to the findings
and recommendations, and so is entitled to a de novo review of the record. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). On September 28, 2016, the parties submitted ajoint
stipulation to dismiss Count II of Chyatte's Complaint.
The portions of the findings and recommendations not specifically objected
to will be reviewed for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus.
-1-

Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). "Clear error exists ifthe Court

is left with a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed."
United States v. Syrax, 235 F.3d 422, 427 (9th Cir. 2000). For the reasons

explained below, the Court adopts Judge Johnston's findings and
recommendations in full.

BACKGROUND
Chyatte is an inmate at the Montana State Prison. He filed a civil rights
petition against the following Defendants: Montana Department of Corrections
("DOC"); Montana State Prison ("MSP"); Mike Batista, Director, Montana
Department of Corrections; Leroy Kirkegard, Warden, Montana State Prison; Tom
Wilson, Associate Warden; Tom Wood, Associate Warden; Terrie Stefalo,
Religious Activities Coordinator; Candyce Neubauer, TCS Bureau Chief; Chris
Conell, Unit Manager; Billie Reich, Grievance Coordinator; Christine Cobban,
Grievance Coordinator; Gary Noll, Sergeant; and Wendi Larson, Sergeant;
individually and in their official capacities. Chyatte alleged six claims: Count I:
retaliation; Count II: retaliation, state law violations; Count III: the "grievance
restriction" is a constitutional violation; Count IV: the compulsory concealment of
yarmulke policy violates RLUIPA; Count V: the compulsory concealment of
yarmulke policy is a constitutional violation; Count VI: Chyatte's book censorship
-2-

is a constitutional violation. (Doc. 2 at 18-21.) Under Count III, Chyatte alleges
that MSP's current imposition and enforcement of its "grievance restrictions" on
various prisoners violates the inmates' constitutional rights. The Defendants
admit that MSP places grievance restrictions on inmates who abuse the grievance
policy, but deny that MSP staff threaten, refuse, or intimidate prisoners from
pursuing meritorious grievances.

LEGAL STANDARDS
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a Court should dismiss a complaint filed in forma
pauperis by a prisoner against a governmental defendant before it is served if it is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. A
complaint is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact."
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A complaint is malicious ifit is
not pleaded in good faith. Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab. Co., 236 U.S. 43, 46
( 1915). A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if a
plaintiff fails to allege the "grounds" of his "entitlement to relief." Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quotation omitted). Rule 8(a)(2)
requires a complaint to "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
-3-

(2009) (quotations omitted). "A document filed pro se is 'to be liberally
construed,' and 'a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to
less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."' Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e) ("Pleadings must be

construed as to do justice.").
State agencies are protected from suit in federal court by immunity under
the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. Under the terms of
the Amendment, "[t]he Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed
to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the
United States by Citizens of another State." U.S. Const. amend. XI. Federal
courts have consistently construed this to mean that absent waiver, "neither a state
nor a state agency acting under its control may be subject to suit in federal court."
Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144

(1993) (citations omitted); see also Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 167
(1985); Holley v. California Dep 't Of Corr., 599 F .3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2010).
However, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar suits for prospective declaratory
or injunctive relief against state officials in their official capacity. Idaho v. Coeur
d'Alene Tribe ofIdaho, 521 U.S. 261, 270 (1997).

-4-

ANALYSIS

Judge Johnston found, and this Court agrees, that a prisoner has no
constitutional right to a specific grievance procedure. Judge Johnston cites to

Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003), and Mann v. Adams, 855
F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988), for this proposition. Chyatte objects, contending
that Ramirez is not controlling on this issue and that the Court should look to

Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F .3d 559 (9th Cir. 2005), a more recent Ninth Circuit
case, for guidance.
Chyatte is correct that Rhodes acknowledges the fundamental importance
of the prison grievance process. Grievance policies are set in place to afford
prisoners a "viable mechanism to remedy prison injustice." Id. at 567. However,
the facts in Rhodes are specific to retaliation against an inmate for filing
grievances. Judge Johnston explained in his findings that Chyatte's allegations
regarding retaliation would survive dismissal. The Court agrees that these claims
survive. Yet, regarding Count III, the issue is simply whether the MSP policy that
places restrictions on certain prisoners who abuse the grievance process is
constitutional.
Under Ramirez, the Ninth Circuit explained that the Due Process clause
provides prisoners with two sources of protection against unconstitutional state
-5-

disciplinary actions. 334 F .3d at 860. "First, a prisoner may challenge a
disciplinary action which deprives or restrains a state-created liberty interest in
some 'unexpected manner."' Id. The Ninth Circuit then cited to Mann, affirming
the determination that a claimed loss of a liberty interest in the processing of
grievances does not satisfy this standard, because "inmates lack a separate
constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure." Id. (citing
Mann, 855 F.2d at 640). "Second, a prisoner may challenge a state action which
does not restrain a protected liberty interest, but which nonetheless imposes some
atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents
of prison life." Id. (citations omitted).
Consequently, under the holding in Ramirez, Count III of Chyatte's
Complaint does not constitute a constitutional deprivation. The MSP policy to
place prisoners on "grievance restrictions" involves the procedure of filing
grievances, and Chyatte has no constitutional claim of entitlement to the procedure
itself. Further, the grievance restriction does not impose an atypical and
significant hardship on Chyatte. Chyatte incurred this restriction himself, after
filing numerous unsubstantiated grievances at MSP. Thus, Chyatte's claim
regarding the grievance procedure at MSP does not survive.
Chyatte further contends that Count III revolves around whether "the
-6-

Defendants arbitrarily and capriciously deprive and/or interfere with Chyatte's
clearly established First Amendment right to file prison grievances." (Doc. 24 at
7.) Again, the Court reiterates that Chyatte does have a First Amendment right to
file grievances in prison. Chyatte has indeed filed many grievances while
incarcerated at MSP. However, he does not have an individual right under his
§ 1983 claim to assert a constitutional violation ofMSP's grievance procedure in
regards to the "grievance restriction" policy.
The Court also agrees with Judge Johnston that under the Eleventh
Amendment, the DOC and MSP have not waived their right to immunity from suit
in this instance. Chyatte argues that the DOC and MSP consented to suits under
RLUIPA when they accepted federal funding for the prison. (Doc. 24 at 9) (citing

Benning v. Georgia, 391F.3d1299, 1306 (11th Cir. 2004)). Chyatte contends that
his Complaint does not bring RL UIPA claims against the DOC and MSP for
money damages. The Court agrees that Chyatte was careful in his requests for
relief to only pray for declaratory and injunctive relief in regards to the DOC and
MSP. However, to the extent that Chyatte' s claims seek monetary damages from
the DOC and MSP, they are dismissed under the Eleventh Amendment.
IT IS ORDERED that Judge Johnston's Findings and Recommendations
(Doc. 9) are ADOPTED IN FULL. Count III ofChyatte's Complaint is
-7-

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the claims against the Montana
Department of Corrections and Montana State Prison and all official capacity
claims for money damages are DISMISSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the parties' joint stipulation to dismiss Count
II ofChyatte's Complaint (Doc. 28) is GRANTED. Count II is DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.
DATED this

h.U. day of October, 2016.

Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge
United States District Court

-8-