Arguijo v. Dennis et al

Filing 31

OPINION & ORDER: Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 24 . This matter is Dismissed. Signed on 2/2/09 by Judge Anna J. Brown. (gm)

FILED'09 FEB 0215G21JSDc,oRP

I N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

LARRY R. ARGUIJO, Plaintiff,

07-CV-1908-BR

OPINION AND ORDER
v.

G. DENNIS, DAVID POWELL, DON MILLS, a n d COLETTE PETERS, Defendants.

LARRY R. ARGUIJO #12040581 Oregon State Correctional Institution 3405 Deer Park Drive S a l e m , OR 9 7 3 1 0
Attorney for Plaintiff

JOHN KROGER Attorney General JACQUELINE SADKER Assistant Attorney General State of Oregon Department of Justice 1162 Court Street, N.E. S a l e m , OR 9 7 3 0 1 [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant 1 - O P I N I O N AND ORDER

BROWN,

Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (#24). For the reasons that follow, the Court

GRANTS D e f e n d a n t s ' M o t i o n .

BACKGROUND

P l a i n t i f f L a r r y R. A r g u i j o , a n i n m a t e a t O r e g o n S t a t e Correctional I n s t i t u t i o n (OSCI), received notice of his d i s c i p l i n a r y hearing on January 16, 2007, and his hearing took place on January 18, 2007. The notice informed P l a i n t i f f t h a t he

had the right to t e s t i f y at his hearing, to request an investigation, and to call witnesses. The notice provided

Plaintiff with information about the evidence that Defendants r e l i e d on and the reasons for the d i s c i p l i n a r y hearing. notice also informed Plaintiff that i f he wanted to call witnesses, he had to submit his request in writing to the hearings o f f i c e r i n advance of the hearing or, a t a minimum, make a request for witnesses to the hearings officer at the time of the hearing. The request had t o include the name o f the person The

Plaintiff wished to call and the questions to be asked. P l a i n t i f f t e s t i f i e d at his hearing, but he did not request any witnesses before or during the hearing. On J a n u a r y 1 8 , 2 0 0 7 ,

the hearings officer issued a written decision informing Plaintiff of his findings of fact and conclusions. 2 - OPINION AND ORDER After the

hearing, P l a i n t i f f r e q u e s t e d a w i t n e s s i n t h e c o n t e x t o f h i s request for administrative review of the decision of the hearings officer. In his request, P l a i n t i f f merely asserted he had "a

witness" who would " t e s t i f y on [ h i s ] b e h a l f . " On D e c e m b e r 2 8 , 2 0 0 7 , P l a i n t i f f f i l e d a C o m p l a i n t i n t h i s Court p u r s u a n t t o 42 U.S.C.
§

1983 alleging Defendants violated

(1) h i s r i g h t t o due process under the Fourteenth Amendment t o the United States Constitution, (2) his r i g h t t o be free from

c r u e l and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment t o the United S t a t e s Constitution, and (3) h i s r i g h t t o p e t i t i o n for redress of grievances under the F i r s t Amendment t o the United States Constitution with respect to a disciplinary hearing and sanction occurring in January 2007. Plaintiff seeks damages.

On S e p t e m b e r 9 , 2 0 0 8 , D e f e n d a n t s f i l e d a M o t i o n f o r S u m m a r y JUdgment as to a l l of P l a i n t i f f ' s claims.'

STANDARDS

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) authorizes summary jUdgment i f no genuine issue exists regarding any material fact and the moving party i s e n t i t l e d to judgment as a matter of law. The moving party must show the absence of an issue of material

, On M a r c h 1 3 , 2 0 0 8 , t h e C o u r t i s s u e d a S u m m a r y J u d g m e n t Advice Notice to P l a i n t i f f advising him that i f he did not submit evidence in opposition t o any motion for summary judgment, summary judgment would be entered against him i f i t was appropriate. 3 - O P I N I O N AND ORDER

fact.

Rivera v.

P h i l i p M o r r i s , I n c . , 3 9 5 F . 3 d 1 1 4 2 , 1 1 4 6 ( 9 th

Cir. 2005).

In response to a properly supported motion for

summary judgment, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and show there i s a genuine issue of material f a c t for trial. Id.

An i s s u e o f f a c t i s g e n u i n e " ' i f t h e e v i d e n c e i s s u c h t h a t a reasonable j u r y could r e t u r n a v e r d i c t for the nonmoving p a r t y . '" Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 2 8 1 F . 3 d 1 0 5 4 , 1 0 6 1 (9 th 477 U.S. 242,

Cir. 2002) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 248 (1986».

The court must draw a l l reasonable inferences i n Id. "Summary judgment cannot be

favor of the nonmoving party.

granted where c o n t r a r y i n f e r e n c e s may be drawn from the evidence as to material issues." E a s t e r v . Am. W. F i n . , 3 8 1 F . 3 d 9 4 8 , 9 5 7

( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) ( c i t i n g S h e r m a n O a k s M e d . A r t s C t r . , L t d . v . Carpenters Local Union No. 1982»). A mere disagreement about a material issue of fact, however, does not preclude summary judgment. Haw., 9 0 2 F . 2 d 1 3 8 5 , 1 3 8 9 ( 9 th C i r . 1 9 9 0 ) . Jackson v. Bank o f 1 9 3 6 , 6 8 0 F . 2 d 5 9 4 , 5 9 8 ( 9 th C i r .

When t h e n o n m o v i n g

p a r t y ' s claims are f a c t u a l l y implausible, t h a t party must "come forward with more persuasive evidence than otherwise would be necessary." Wong v. R e g e n t s o f Univ. o f C a l . , 379 F.3d 1097 ( 9 th

C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) , a s a m e n d e d b y 4 1 0 F . 3 d 1 0 5 2 , 1 0 5 5 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( c i t i n g Blue Ridge Ins. Co. v. Stanewich, 142 F.3d 1145, 1149 4 - O P I N I O N AND ORDER

(9 t h C i r . 1 9 9 8 » . The substantive law governing a claim or a defense determines whether a fact is material. Prod., I n c . , 454 F.3d 975, 987 Miller v. Glenn Miller If the

( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) .

resolution of a factual dispute would not affect the outcome of t h e claim, t h e c o u r t may g r a n t summary judgment. Id.

DISCUSSION
Defendants move f o r summary judgment as t o a l l of P l a i n t i f f ' s claims on the grounds that they lack merit and that, in any event, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

I.

Defendants did not violate Plaintiff's rights to procedural due p r o c e s s under t h e F o u r t e e n t h Amendment t o t h e U n i t e d States Constitution.
Plaintiff asserts Defendants violated his right to

procedural due process as t o h i s January 2007 d i s c i p l i n a r y hearing when they denied h i s post-hearing request t o c a l l witnesses and his request for an investigation. Defendants, in

turn, a s s e r t P l a i n t i f f has not shown t h a t Defendants v i o l a t e d h i s r i g h t s to due process with respect to the January 2007 disciplinary hearing. In Wolff v. McDonnell, the Supreme Court s e t out the basic procedural due-process guarantees in the context of prison disciplinary hearings. 418 U.S. 539, 563-72 (1974). The Ninth

Circuit summarized the Wolff requirements as follows: 5 - O P I N I O N AND ORDER

Wolff e s t a b l i s h e d f i v e p r o c e d u r a l r e q u i r e m e n t s . First, "written notice of the charges must be given to the disciplinary-action defendant in order to inform him of the charges and to enable h i m t o m a r s h a l t h e f a c t s a n d p r e p a r e a defense.~ Wolff, 418 u . s . a t 564. Second, "at least a brief period o f time a f t e r the n o t i c e , no l e s s than 24 hours, should be allowed to the inmate to prepare for the appearance before the Adjustment Committee.~ Id. Third, "there must be a 'written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and reasons' for the disciplinary action.~ Id. (quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 u.S. 471, 489 ( 1 9 7 2 ) . Fourth, "the inmate facing disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense when permitting him t o do so w i l l not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or c o r r e c t i o n a l goals.~ I d . , 4 1 8 u . S . a t 5 6 6 . Fifth, "[w]here an i l l i t e r a t e inmate i s involved . or where the complexity of the issue makes i t unlikely that the inmate will be able to collect and present the evidence necessary for an adequate comprehension of the case, he should be free to seek the aid of a fellow inmate, or .to have adequate substitute a i d . . from the s t a f f or from a[n] . inmate designated by t h e staff.~ I d . a t 5 7 0 . The Court s p e c i f i c a l l y h e l d t h a t t h e Due P r o c e s s C l a u s e d o e s n o t r e q u i r e that prisons allow inmates to cross-examine their accusers, id. at 567-68, nor does i t give rise to a right to counsel in the proceedings, id. at 569-70. W a l k e r v . S u m n e r , 14 F . 3 d 1 4 1 5 , 1 4 2 0 (9 th C i r . 1 9 9 4 ) , o v e r r u l e d on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 482 (1995).

As n o t e d , P l a i n t i f f d i d n o t r e q u e s t a n y w i t n e s s e s b e f o r e o r during the hearing. On J a n u a r y 1 8 , 2 0 0 7 , t h e h e a r i n g s o f f i c e r

issued a written decision informing Plaintiff of his findings of fact and conclusions. After the hearing, Plaintiff requested to

have a witness t e s t i f y in the context of his request for

6 - OPINION AND ORDER

administrative r e v i e w o f t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e h e a r i n g s o f f i c e r . I n h i s r e q u e s t , P l a i n t i f f m e r e l y a s s e r t e d h e h a d "a w i t n e s s " w h o would " t e s t i f y on [his] behalf"; i . e . , P l a i n t i f f did not make h i s request for a witness before or during the hearing nor did he include the name of the person nor t h e questions t o be asked as required. On t h i s r e c o r d , t h e C o u r t c o n c l u d e s D e f e n d a n t s c o m p l i e d w i t h the due-process requirements set out in Wolff and, therefore, did not v i o l a t e P l a i n t i f f ' s procedural due-process r i g h t s when they refused to allow Plaintiff to present a witness after the hearing. As t o P l a i n t i f f ' s claim t h a t he was denied procedural due process because Defendants denied his request for a further investigation, Wolff does not require prison officials to conduct an additional investigation at the request of an inmate. Defendants' denial of Plaintiff's request for further investigation, therefore, did not violate Plaintiff's procedural due-process rights. S e e A n t h o n y v . C o u n t y o f M u l t n o m a h , N o . CV

0 4 - 2 2 9 - M O , 2 0 0 6 WL 2 7 8 1 9 3 , a t * 3 (D. O r . F e b . 3 , 2 0 0 6 ) ( a n i n m a t e i s not entitled to investigation by a third-party or to an investigation conducted in a particular manner under Wolff). also Whitford v. Boglino, 6 3 F . 3 d 5 2 7 , 5 3 2 (7 t h C i r . 1 9 9 5 ) See

(inmates do not have any "federal due process right to a prehearing i n v e s t i g a t i o n " ) ; Brown v. Frey, 889 F.2d 159, 170-71

7 - O P I N I O N AND ORDER

(8 t h C i r . 1 9 8 9 ) ( t h e r e i s " n o c l e a r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o a n 'adequate investigation'" in the context of prison disciplinary proceedings) . Accordingly, the Court g r a n t s Defendants' Motion for Summary JUdgment as to P l a i n t i f f ' s claim for violation of his procedural due-process rights.

II.

Defendants did not violate Plaintiff's rights to substantive due p r o c e s s under t h e Fourteenth Amendment t o t h e United states Constitution.
Claims under the Eighth Amendment challenge prison

o f f i c i a l s ' duty t o "provide humane conditions of confinement." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-33 (1994). Claims alleging

violations of substantive due process, however, challenge allegedly "arbitrary, wrongful government actions 'regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them. '" Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 125 (1990) (quoting Daniels v. Williams, 4 7 4 U. S . 3 2 7 , 3 3 1 ( 1 9 8 6 » .

Although Plaintiff characterizes his claim that Defendants did not have sufficient evidence to support the imposition of discipline as a claim for violation of his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, the substance of his claim suggests i t i s actually one for violation of his substantive due-process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment; in other words, P l a i n t i f f challenges the d i s c i p l i n a r y process rather than the conditions of his confinement. The

8 - O P I N I O N AND ORDER

Court, t h e r e f o r e , a n a l y z e s P l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m t h a t D e f e n d a n t s d i d not have sufficient evidence to impose discipline as a claim for violation of Plaintiff's substantive due-process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment t o the United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n . In Superintendent v. Hill, the Supreme Court concluded substantive due process requires only that prison o f f i c i a l s have "some evidence" t o support the disciplinary action. 445, 454 (1985). 472 U.S.

T h e N i n t h C i r c u i t e x p l a i n e d , " U n d e r H i l l , we d o

not examine the entire record, independently assess witness credibility, or reweigh the evidence; rather, 'the relevant

question i s whether there is any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion. '"
Bruce v. Ylst,

351 F.3d 1283, "The

1 2 8 7 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) ( q u o t i n g W o l f f , 4 7 2 U . S . a t 4 5 5 - 5 6 ) .

f u n d a m e n t a l f a i r n e s s g u a r a n t e e d b y t h e Due P r o c e s s C l a u s e d o e s not require courts to set aside decisions of prison administrators t h a t have some b a s i s i n f a c t . " 456. Here Defendants concluded P l a i n t i f f committed assault. did so based on the report of Officer Greg Dennis in which he s t a t e d he saw P l a i n t i f f kicking the head and body of another i n m a t e who w a s c u r l e d u p a g a i n s t t h e f e n c e . Def. ' s Ex. 2. They
Wolff,

472 U.S. a t

Officer Dennis reported he ordered Plaintiff to stop fighting and t o move away. P l a i n t i f f complied and was escorted to the The report of Officer Dennis

Disciplinary Segregation Unit.

9 - OPINION AND ORDER

constitutes " s o m e e v i d e n c e " a n d p r o v i d e s " s o m e b a s i s i n f a c t " f o r Defendants' conclusion that Plaintiff committed assault. The

Court, therefore, finds Defendants did not violate Plaintiff's substantive due-process r i g h t s when they concluded P l a i n t i f f committed assault and imposed sanctions. Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants' Motion f o r Summary Judgment as to P l a i n t i f f ' s substantive due-process claim.
III. Defendants did not violate Plaintiff's right to petition for the redress o f grievances under the F i r s t Amendment to the United states Constitution.

Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated his right to petition f o r the redress o f grievances under the F i r s t Amendment t o the United States Constitution. Defendants move f o r summary judgment on the ground t h a t Plaintiff does not allege facts that give rise to a claim for denial of his right to petition for the redress of grievances because i t is undisputed that Plaintiff petitioned for redress of his grievances through the prison grievance system. " [ P ] r i s o n e r s have a F i r s t Amendment r i g h t t o p e t i t i o n the government f o r a redress of grievances and have a F i r s t Amendment right to file prison grievances."
J a m e s v . S c r i b n e r , N o . CV

1 - 0 7 - S S 0 - R C C , 2 0 0 9 WL 1 1 2 7 7 0 , a t *4 ( E . D . C a l . J a n . 1 6 , 2 0 0 9 ) { c i t i n g R h o d e s v . R o b i n s o n , 40S F . 3 d 5 5 9 , 567 (9 th C i r . 2 0 0 5 » . As noted, hearing. Plaintiff grieved the results of his disciplinary

Even though P l a i n t i f f ' s grievance was denied, he was

1 0 - OPINION AND ORDER

not p r e v e n t e d f r o m u s i n g t h e a v a i l a b l e g r i e v a n c e p r o c e s s t o challenge his sanction. The Court, therefore, concludes

Defendants did not deny Plaintiff his right to petition for the r e d r e s s of grievances under the F i r s t Amendment t o the United States Constitution. Accordingly, the Court g r a n t s Defendants' Motion f o r Summary Judgment as t o P l a i n t i f f ' s claim under the F i r s t Amendment.

CONCLUSION F o r t h e s e r e a s o n s , t h e C o u r t GRANTS D e f e n d a n t s ' M o t i o n f o r S u m m a r y J u d g m e n t ( # 2 4 ) a n d DISMISSES t h i s m a t t e r . I T I S SO ORDERED. DATED t h i s 2 n d d a y o f F e b r u a r y , 2 0 0 9 .

United States District Judge

1 1 - O P I N I O N AND ORDER