Beebe v. Elko County Jail et al

Filing 25

ORDER that Judge Carry's R&R ECF No. 22 is accepted and adopted in full; Defendant's motion for summary judgment ECF No. 15 is granted; Clerk directed to enter judgment and close case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 12/11/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

JARED EDWARD BEEBE,

Case No. 3:16-cv-00595-MMD-CBC
Plaintiff,

10

ORDER

v.
11
ELKO COUNTY JAIL; JIM PITTS; et al.,
12
Defendants.
13
14

I.

SUMMARY

15

This is a prisoner’s civil rights case about Elko County Jail’s handling of legal mail.

16

Before the Court is the Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Carla

17

Baldwin Carry (ECF No. 22). Plaintiff Jared Edward Beebe filed an objection (ECF No.

18

23), and Defendant Jim Pitts filed a response (ECF No. 24). For the following reasons, the

19

Court overrules Plaintiff’s objection and accepts and adopts Judge Carry’s R&R in full.

20

II.

BACKGROUND

21

Plaintiff alleges that an unnamed Doe individual at the Elko County Jail opened and

22

reviewed Plaintiff’s outgoing legal mail on January 12, 2016, even though the envelope

23

was sealed and clearly marked as legal mail. (ECF No. 4 at 4.) Plaintiff discovered that

24

his mail had been reviewed or read, rubber stamped, resealed, and delivered to Plaintiff’s

25

attorney on February 8, 2016, when Plaintiff received a copy of the January 12, 2016

26

attorney correspondence. (Id. at 4-5.) Plaintiff alleges that neither he nor his attorney were

27

notified that Elko County Jail employees were reading Plaintiff’s outgoing mail. (Id.)

28

///

The Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint and allowed Plaintiff to proceed with a

1
2

claim for violation of his First and Sixth Amendment rights. (ECF No. 3 at 6.)

3

Defendant Jim Pitts filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 15), and Judge

4

Carry recommended granting Defendant’s motion because (1) Elko County Jail’s mail

5

policies are constitutional and (2) Plaintiff has not adequately pleaded that Defendant Pitts

6

was personally involved in the opening of Plaintiff’s legal mail. (ECF No. 22 at 6-8.)

7

III.

LEGAL STANDARD

8

This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

9

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party

10

timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is

11

required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and

12

recommendation] to which objection is made.” Id. In light of Plaintiff’s objection to the

13

Magistrate Judge’s R&R, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to

14

determine whether to adopt Judge Carry’s R&R. Upon reviewing the R&R and records in

15

this case, this Court finds good cause to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s R&R in full.

16

IV.

DISCUSSION

17

Plaintiff first objects to the R&R on the ground that he did not receive Elko County

18

Jail’s legal mail policies. (ECF No. 23 at 3.) Defendant responds that Plaintiff received the

19

Elko County Sheriff’s Office Jail Rules Handbook (“Handbook”), which prohibited

20

submission of sealed outgoing mail. (ECF No. 24 at 3.) The Handbook also instructed

21

inmates to ask Jail staff for clarification of anything they did not understand. (Id.)

22

The Court finds Plaintiff’s first objection unpersuasive. Plaintiff does not dispute that

23

the legal mail policy is constitutional and has not produced evidence that Defendant Pitts

24

is the individual who opened his mail. Whether Plaintiff received a full and complete copy

25

of Elko County Jail’s legal mail policy is irrelevant to these determinations.

26

Plaintiff’s second objection is that Defendant did not carry his burden of proving that

27

it was not Pitts who opened Plaintiff’s mail. (ECF No. 23 at 4.) However, Plaintiff misstates

28

the parties’ respective burdens. “A moving party who does not bear the burden of proof at
2

1

trial ‘must either produce evidence negating an essential element of the nonmoving party’s

2

claim or defense or show that the nonmoving party does not have enough evidence of an

3

essential element’ to support its case.” (ECF No. 22 at 3 (citing Nissan Fire & Marine Ins.

4

Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000).) Here, Defendant took the latter

5

approach. Defendant showed that Plaintiff does not have enough evidence of an essential

6

element—namely, Defendant Pitts’s personal involvement in opening and reading

7

Plaintiff’s sealed mail—to support his case. Supervisory officials may be liable under 42

8

U.S.C. § 1983 only if (1) they are personally involved in the constitutional deprivation; or

9

(2) there is a causal connection between the supervisor’s conduct and the constitutional

10

violation. Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776, 798 (9th Cir. 2018). Plaintiff

11

has not produced evidence of either. While Plaintiff gestures at Defendant’s failure to

12

adequately train, supervise, or control staff who handle legal mail (see ECF No. 23 at 5),

13

Plaintiff has not produced any evidence in this regard.

14

Plaintiff’s third objection is based on the Nevada Department of Corrections’

15

(“NDOC”) policy requiring NDOC employees who handle inmate legal mail to document

16

their activities as legal mail is processed. (ECF No. 23 at 6.) Plaintiff asserts that he would

17

be able to identify who opened his mail if Elko County Jail had such a policy. (Id.) Elko

18

County Jail apparently does not have such a policy, and the existence of such a policy

19

within the NDOC is immaterial. Plaintiff does not dispute that Elko County Jail’s legal mail

20

policy is constitutional in it its own right. And while Plaintiff may prefer Elko County Jail’s

21

legal mail policy to mirror the NDOC’s legal mail policy, the Constitution does not require

22

it.

23

Plaintiff’s fourth objection is based on his observation that his documents were

24

stamped with the words “Elko County Jail.” (ECF No. 23 at 7.) Plaintiff essentially argues

25

that Defendant Pitts should be held liable for anything bearing that stamp because he

26

oversees the Elko County Jail. (See id.) Defendant responds that Plaintiff’s argument

27

“ignores the applicable constitutional standards” and that “Plaintiff has no evidence, and

28

///
3

1

does not allege, that Sheriff Pitts personally read his legal mail.” (ECF No. 24 at 4.) The

2

Court agrees with Defendant.
Accordingly, the Court will overrule Plaintiff’s objections.

3
4

V.

CONCLUSION

5

The Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to several cases

6

not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and determines

7

that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the objection

8

before the Court.
It is therefore ordered that Judge Carry’s R&R (ECF No. 22) is accepted and

9
10

adopted in full.
It is further ordered that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 15)

11
12

is granted.
The Clerk of the Court is instructed to enter judgment accordingly and close this

13
14
15

case.
DATED THIS 10th day of December 2018.

16
17
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4