Matthews v. Taylor et al

Filing 209

OPINION AND ORDER. For the reasons stated, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 203 .) Signed on 11/2/2020 by Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman. (Mailed to Plaintiff on 11/2/2020.) (gw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

DANIEL J. MATTHEWS,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:16-cv-01958-SB
OPINION AND ORDER

v.
CURTIS ULRICH, et al.,
Defendants.
BECKERMAN, U.S. Magistrate Judge.
Daniel J. Matthews (“Matthews”), a self-represented litigant in custody at the Eastern
Oregon Correctional Institution (“EOCI”), filed this action alleging that the above-named
Oregon Department of Corrections (“ODOC”) personnel (hereinafter, “Defendants”) violated his
constitutional rights by mishandling his mail.1 (ECF No. 200.) Currently before the Court is
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 203.)
///
The Court previously entered summary judgment on Matthews’ claims alleging
excessive force in response to a self-harm incident that occurred in January 2014, and does not
revisit that opinion herein. See Matthews v. Taylor, 2:16-cv-01958-SB, 2018 WL 4441524 (D.
Or. Apr. 24, 2018), adopted in relevant part by 2018 WL 4431318 (D. Or. Sept. 17, 2018).
1

PAGE 1 – OPINION AND ORDER

The Court has jurisdiction over Matthews’ claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and all
parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a U.S. Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. For

the reasons set forth below, this Court grants Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
BACKGROUND
Matthews alleges a pattern of interference with his personal mail beginning in 2015, and
asserts that Defendants interfered with his mail in retaliation for his filing of grievances relating
to a January 2014 self-harm incident. (Third Am. Compl. (“TAC”) ¶ 21.) Specifically, Matthews
alleges that he sent a letter to the Oregon Supreme Court asking for recent opinions in excessive
force cases, and a letter to a business about education, and did not receive return mail from either
entity. (TAC ¶ 22.) Matthews alleges that he did not receive a “personal letter” from a friend
containing her declaration in March 2016, and did not receive a book another friend claimed he
sent in April 2016. (TAC ¶ 23.) Matthews also alleges that in August 2016, a friend’s letter
arrived ripped almost in half, and the sender informed him that prior mail had been returned to
her. (TAC ¶ 25.) Matthews further alleges that he did not timely receive a letter about a
collections action in August 2016. (TAC ¶ 26.)
DISCUSSION
I.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is appropriate if “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact

and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). On a motion
for summary judgment, the court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that party. Porter v. Cal. Dep’t of
Corr., 419 F.3d 885, 891 (9th Cir. 2005). The court does not assess the credibility of witnesses,
weigh evidence, or determine the truth of matters in dispute. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). “Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of
PAGE 2 – OPINION AND ORDER

fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus.
Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted).
II.

ANALYSIS
Defendants move for summary judgment on all claims in Matthews’ third amended

complaint.
A.

First Amendment Retaliation Claims

Matthews alleges that Defendants interfered with his mail in 2015 and 2016 in retaliation
for his filing of grievances relating to a January 2014 incident. (TAC ¶¶ 21-26.)
Prisoners have a First Amendment right to file grievances. See Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d
1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009) (“It is well-established that . . . prisoners have a First Amendment
right to file prison grievances.”). Retaliation by prison officials against an individual in custody
for using the grievance process violates the First Amendment. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d
559, 567 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of fundamental import to prisoners are their First Amendment
‘right[s] to file prison grievances’. . . . And because purely retaliatory actions taken against a
prisoner for having exercised those rights necessarily undermine those protections, such actions
violate the Constitution quite apart from any underlying misconduct they are designed to
shield.”) (citations omitted). “Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment
retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action
against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4)
chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably
advance a legitimate correctional goal.” Id. at 567-68.
Matthews’ First Amendment retaliation claims fail for at least two reasons. First, he has
not submitted any evidence to demonstrate that any defendant interfered with his mail in
PAGE 3 – OPINION AND ORDER

retaliation for filing grievances. He alleges that he did not receive a response to his letter to the
Oregon Supreme Court requesting copies of cases, or a response to his letter to another outside
institution, but submits no evidence that either recipient actually sent a response to his
correspondence. Matthews also alleges that he did not receive a few pieces of personal mail that
he expected to receive over this two-year time period, but a few examples of lost mail over a
two-year period is not particularly suspicious or evidence of a conspiracy. One letter arrived torn,
but he could still read its contents. Another letter arrived late.2 The few examples Matthews
provides do not, without more, support a finding that Defendants were engaging in retaliatory or
conspiratorial behavior here.
Second, the interference Matthews alleges here does not rise to the level of a
constitutional violation because an occasional piece of lost or torn mail over an extended period
of time is not sufficient to chill or silence an individual of ordinary firmness from future First
Amendment activities. See, e.g., Harrison v. Milligan, No. C 09-4665 SI (pr), 2010 WL
1957389, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2010) (holding that alleged confiscation of “some of [the
plaintiff’s] incoming and outgoing mail” is not conduct “of sufficient severity that . . . would
chill or silence a person or ordinary firmness from future First Amendment activities” (citing
Mendocino Env’t. Ctr. v. Mendocino Cty., 192 F.3d 1283, 1300 (9th Cir. 1999))).
///
///
///

2

To the extent Matthews alleges that other individuals in custody also experienced
problems with lost mail (TAC ¶ 24), “[a] prisoner cannot bring claims on behalf of other
prisoners” but instead “must allege a personal loss.” Meadows v. Reeves, No. 1:11-cv-00257LJO-JLT (PC), 2017 WL 1349227, at *10 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2017) (citation omitted).
PAGE 4 – OPINION AND ORDER

Based on the record before the Court, no reasonable juror could find that Defendants
violated Matthews’ First Amendment right to file grievances by interfering with his mail, and
therefore the Court enters summary judgment for Defendants.3
B.

Due Process Claims

Matthews also asserts that Defendants’ alleged interference with his mail violated his
right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Individuals in custody have a “Fourteenth Amendment due process liberty interest in
receiving notice that . . . incoming mail is being withheld by prison authorities.” Frost v.
Symington, 197 F.3d 348, 353 (9th Cir. 1999). This liberty interest is protected from “arbitrary
government invasion” and any decision to censor or withhold delivery of mail “must be
accompanied by minimum procedural safeguards.” Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 418-19
(1974) (noting that the following minimum procedures are required: (1) notifying the individual
of the rejection of a letter; (2) allowing the author of the letter a reasonable opportunity to protest
the decision; and (3) referring any complaints to a prison official other than the person who made
the censorship decision), overruled on other grounds by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401
(1989).
Matthews has not presented any evidence that Defendants censored or otherwise rejected
any of his mail. Rather, he alleges that he did not receive a few pieces of mail he expected to

3

To the extent Matthews asserts an access to courts claim with respect to the copies of
cases he did not receive from the Oregon Supreme Court, or the declaration he did not receive
from his friend, he has failed to demonstrate that his failure to receive these materials frustrated
or impeded any specific nonfrivolous legal claim. See, e.g., Canales-Robles v. Peters, 270 F.
Supp. 3d 1230, 1236 (D. Or. 2017) (“The doctrine of standing requires an inmate to allege an
‘actual injury’ due to interference with the inmate’s right to access the courts. The ‘actual injury’
requirement means an inmate suing for denial of access to courts must allege that a ‘nonfrivolous
legal claim had been frustrated or was being impeded.’” (quoting Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343,
349-53 (1996))).
PAGE 5 – OPINION AND ORDER

receive, one letter arrived torn, and one letter arrived late. Matthews has not alleged any process
he was due, but did not receive, with respect to his lost, torn, or late mail. Accordingly,
Defendants are entitled to judgment on Matthews’ due process claims.4 Cf. Martin v. Basnett,
No. 17-cv-06263-YGR (PR), 2020 WL 4505565, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2020) (entering
summary judgment for prison officials on the plaintiff’s claim that prison officials improperly
censored his mail where “the undisputed facts show that Plaintiff was afforded constitutionally
adequate procedural due process in the withholding of the mail at issue”).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
(ECF No. 203.)
DATED this 2nd day of November, 2020.

HON. STACIE F. BECKERMAN
United States Magistrate Judge

In light of the Court’s entry of summary judgment on the merits, the Court does not
reach Defendants’ alternative arguments.
4

PAGE 6 – OPINION AND ORDER