Starns v. Williamson et al

Filing 35

ORDER: Granting Motion for Summary Judgment 30 . No genuine issues of material fact remaining in this case and the defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Clerk is directed to enter a judgment dismissing this action with prejudice. Signed on 12/3/2013 by Chief Judge Ann L. Aiken. Copy of this order and judgment sent to Pro Se plaintiff. (rh)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON KYLE STEARNS, Plaintiff , 2:13-cv-00479-AA v. ORDER LEONARD WILLIAMSON, et al., Defendants. AIKEN, District Judge. Plaintiff, Department Eastern of an inmate Corrections Oregon in the (ODOC), Correctional custody was a Correctional Officer at EOCI, the disciplined Institution unilaterally assaulted another inmate. of (EOCI) Oregon at the after he Defendant Dave Powell, relied on credible confidential informants at the hearing and assessed sanctions against plaintiff. Plaintiff filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 alleging that defendants violated his due process rights and his rights under the Oregon Constitution (for injury to his 1 - ORDER reputation) and at common now move law for libel, slander and defamation. Defendants Plaintiff - who has for summary received the judgment (#30) . Summary Judgment advice notice - has not filed a response. The facts giving rise to plaintiff's claims are set forth in defendant's Memorandum in Support declarations. (#31) and supporting As noted above, they have not been controverted or contested by plaintiff. The hearing, record the reflects that at plaintiff's disciplinary disciplinary hearings officer statements of two confidential informants. that the confidential disclosing the informants confidential were informants' ( DHO) relied on The DHO determined reliable and identities that would endanger them. The record further reflects that plaintiff's request to call witnesses plaintiff's However, was request defendant denied. to review Powell was Defendant Powell surveillance informed by agreed camera a to video. correctional officer that there was no usable video. alleges Petitioner that defendants violated his substantive due process rights in that he was not convicted by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. However, 2 - ORDER in the context of priison disciplinary proceedings, due process requires only "some evidence" to support the disciplinary decision. Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985). relevant Under the "some evidence" standard, the inquiry is whether there is any evidence in the record that could support the decision. F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th Cir. 2003) Bruce v. Ylst, 351 (quoting Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. at 455-456). In this case, there was confidential eyewitness testimony from two credible sources victim's assailant. identifying plaintiff as his The evidence also established that the victim was transported to the hospital and treated for serious wounds. The witness accounts linking plaintiff to the victim and the evidence of serious wounds constitutes "some evidence" to support "Inmate a finding that plaintiff committed the act Assault I." Accordingly the DHO decision of to discipline plaintiff for his conduct was supported by "some evidence" and did not violate plaintiff's substantive due process rights. The Supreme Court has outlined the constitutional due process requirements for prison disciplinary proceedings as follows: " ( 1) written notice of the charged misconduct at least 24 hours before the hearing; body; (2) an impartial hearing (3) an opportunity to present witnesses and documentary evidence; (4) assistance for illiterate inmates, or in complex 3 - ORDER cases, and (5) a written statement of the evidence relied upon and the reasons McDonnell, for 418 U.S. the 539, sanction 563-72 imposed." (1974). Wolff see v. Although an inmate has the right to call witnesses at a disciplinary hearing, that right witnesses is not must safety or unlimited. "not be correctional An unduly goals" inmates's hazardous and a right to to call institutional hearings officer may decline an inmate's request to call a witness "whether it be for irrelevance, lack of necessity, or the hazards present in individual cases. Id. at 566. Plaintiff alleges that his procedural due process rights were violated because he was not permitted to call his victim as a witness to support his defense. However, it is well established that a DHO may deny an inmate's request to call a witness in light of security concerns. reasonably concluded that allowing In this case the DHO plaintiff to call his victim as a witness would have posed hazards to the victim and exercised his Supplemental discretion Powell to exclude Declaration the (submitted witness. for In See Camera inspection) explaining the decision. Plaintiff also alleges that his due process rights were violated because he was not permitted to produce video surveillance video tape at his hearing. However, 4 - ORDER as noted above, it was determined that no surveillance video of the assault existed. Defendants cannot be liable for failing to produce evidence that did not exist. In addition, plaintiff has not established that the outcome of his hearing would have been different if the video tape had been available. Plaintiff allegs that the DHO should have summarized the confidential informant statements for him so that he could rebut the statements at his hearing. inmates do not have a However, as noted above, constitutional right to confront confidential informant witnesses or otherwise cross examine witnesses at disciplinary hearings. The record is clear that plaintiff was afforded the constitutional due process guarantees outlined in Wolff, and that there was some evidence to support the DHO decision. Accordingly, I find that defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of lw and it is not necessary to address defendants other arguments in detail. However, for the sake of the record, I find as follows: Defendants liability are for entitled damages to because qualified they did immunity not from violate plaintiff's clearly established constitutional rights. See, Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 198 (2004); Saucier v. Katz, 533 u.s. 194, 206 (2001). There 5 - ORDER are no alleged facts from which it could be concluded that defendants Williamson or Coursey were personally involved in any deprivation of plaintiff's rights. See, Stevenson v. Koskey, 877 F.2d 1435, 1439 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740 (9th Cir. 1978). Plaintiff has no private right of action to sue for money damages under the Oregon Constitution. Eugene, 309 Or. 298, 303-04 Or. 174 Hunter v. City of (1990); Barcik v. Kubiaczyk, 321 (1995). Plaintiff's common law claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment because under the Oregon Tort Claims Act, the State of Oregon - not the individual parties - are the only proper defendants. ORS 30.265(3). Based on all of the foregoing, I find that there are no genuine issues of material fact remaining in this case and that defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Defendants' Motion. for Summary Judgment (#30) is allowed. The Clerk is directed to enter a judgment dismissing this action with prejudice. Any appeal from this order or judgment of dismissal would be frivolous and not taken in good faith. DATED this~ay of December, 2013. Ann Aiken United State District Judge 6 - ORDER

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?