Hunter v. Heath, No. CV-99-323-ST.
| Decision Date | 11 April 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. CV-99-323-ST. |
| Citation | 95 F.Supp.2d 1140 |
| Parties | Darrick L. HUNTER, Plaintiff, v. Brad HEATH, Superintendent of Security and Joe Klika, IMU/DSU Security Manager and, Cristy DeButts, Supervisor of Program Services and, Bill Doman, Program Services Manager and, Officer Orr, IMU/DSU Lieutenant and, Ken Ward, Assistant Superintendent at the Snake River Correctional Institution, in their individual and official capacity, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
Darrick L. Hunt, Ontario, OR, Pro se.
Jan Peter Londahl, Dept. of Justice Administration, Salem, OR, for Defendants.
Plaintiff, Darrick L. Hunter ("Hunter"), an inmate at the Snake River Correctional Institution ("SRCI") appearing pro se, brings this action under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against various SRCI employees for unlawfully terminating his prison job/assignment as an inmate legal assistant. Hunter alleges that defendants fired him for filing an inmate communication form ("kyte") regarding the alleged confiscation of inmate Michael Petrie's ("Petrie") legal materials. He alleges that his termination was in retaliation for asserting his free speech rights and his right to petition the government for redress of his grievances. He also alleges that defendants denied him due process of law when they terminated him without notice, inflicted cruel and unusual punishment on him when they refused to reinstate him to his inmate legal assistant position, and denied him equal protection of the laws by not reinstating him even though the disciplinary charges levied against him were dismissed while other similarly situated prisoners retained their positions after disciplinary charges levied against them were dismissed.
As a result, Hunter alleges that defendants violated his: (1) Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment;1 (2) Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law; (3) Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the laws; and (4) First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of his grievances. In addition, the introduction to the Amended Complaint alleges that defendants retaliated against Hunter based on the contents of the kyte he filed. This allegation appears to be a claim based on freedom of speech, but the Claims for Relief section does not specifically allege a retaliation claim based on freedom of speech. Because this court must liberally construe pro se plaintiffs's complaints, Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir.1988), this court will construe the Amended Complaint as also including a § 1983 claim based on retaliation for asserting First Amendment free speech rights. Hunter seeks compensatory and punitive damages for his emotional and physical distress, along with his costs and reasonable attorney fees if the court appoints an attorney to represent him. All parties have consented to allow a Magistrate Judge to enter final orders and judgment in this case in accordance with FRCP 73 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Now before the court is defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (docket # 25). For the reasons set forth below, defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part.
The SRCI hired Hunter as an inmate legal assistant in the Disciplinary Segregation Unit ("DSU")/Intensive Management Unit ("IMU") library on October 10, 1998, where he worked until the SRCI removed him on February 9, 1999. An inmate legal assistant is authorized to "assist other inmates with their legal concerns when requested by assisting inmates in the preparation and filing of legal documents with the courts through consulting, legal research, and typing, as necessary." OAR 291-139-0015(2)(a).
Lynn Hust ("Hust"), current SRCI Library Coordinator, was Hunter's immediate supervisor from the day he began work through January 3, 1999. Susan Deonier ("Deonier"), an SRCI Correctional Counselor, was the Library Coordinator in the DSU between January 14, 1998, and May 25, 1999, and Hunter's immediate supervisor between January 4 and February 9, 1999. Hust advises any inmate who begins working as a legal assistant that: (1) he will be held to a higher standard than other workers at the SRCI because of the unique high security location of the DSU/ IMU Library; (2) every rule must be strictly complied with; and (3) any violation or deviation from the rules or policies would result in termination.
On January 13, 1999, Petrie came to the DSU Library claiming that prison officials had taken his legal papers. Hunter had prepared two prior habeas petitions for Petrie to file in court which, according to Petrie, SRCI staff had confiscated before he could file them. Petrie's January 13, 1999 complaint apparently related to yet another habeas petition that SRCI staff confiscated before he could file it with the court. Petrie discussed his complaint with Hunter and Deonier. Hunter claims that at that time, the inmate legal assistants were receiving numerous complaints about prison officials' mistreatment of DSU/IMA prisoners which was causing them an over-whelming amount of stress and crippling their ability to perform their job duties.
Upset at Petrie's situation, Hunter sent a kyte the next day to defendant Brad Heath ("Heath"), SRCI Superintendent of Security. The SRCI encourages inmates to utilize the inmate communication process by first sending kytes to the lowest prison official level to resolve disputes between themselves and prison staff, or to complain about other staff or prisoners. That kyte states as follows:
I helped Petrie prepare legal documents to the courts. It has come to my attention that Petrie's legal materials were confiscated because he refused to reveal names about harm to him because of fear for him and his families safety.... I personally helped him prepare legal documents and now those documents are missing. His legal materials were destroyed and mixed-up as well. I'm asking that you inquire into this matter because Petrie said all this happened after he spoke with you. I was extremely disturbed by this conduct, because not only does it effect Petrie, it also effects or obstruct my ability to provide him adequate legal assistance.... Therefore, I ask for your assistance in helping Petrie get his legal documents back.
Affidavit of Darrick L. Hunter ("Hunter Aff"), Exhibit ("Ex") 5, pp. 1-2.
On February 1, 1999, Heath, through defendant Joe Klika ("Klika"), DSU/IMU Security Manager, asked defendant Captain Orr, Operations Captain for Special Housing, to conduct an investigation concerning Hunter's kyte. During the course of her investigation, Captain Orr learned that Hunter had not received explicit authorization from SRCI staff to file a complaint on behalf of another prisoner. Captain Orr believed that Hunter had exceeded his duties as an inmate legal assistant by filing the kyte. She also believed that he was soliciting staff to address another prisoner's problems and was attempting to acquire power by establishing himself as a spokesperson on behalf of prisoners in dealing with prison administrators. She felt that allowing a prisoner that kind of authority is plainly contrary to the security interests of a prison because it could jeopardize and weaken the authority and control that prison officials must maintain.
In a memorandum dated February 10, 1999, Captain Orr notified Hunter that he had been terminated from his work assignment effective February 9, 1999, because he had "exceeded [his] realm of responsibility as an Inmate Legal Assistant." That same day, she prepared a misconduct report charging Hunter with disobedience of an order and providing false information to staff based on the circumstances surrounding the kyte he sent to Heath. On February 19, 1999, this misconduct report was dismissed for insufficient evidence. Despite dismissal of the misconduct report, defendants refused to reinstate Hunter as an inmate legal assistant because they believed that he had developed an aggressive and contentious attitude toward staff and that attitude was incompatible with the volatile nature of the security area in which he worked.
Hunter claims that Klika told him that Klika was tired of the inmate legal assistants helping DSU/IMA prisoners challenge his staff and that his goal was to shut down the law library and to permit only one staff member to transport legal materials to and from these prisoners. SRCI officials removed inmate legal assistant Neil Stafford ("Stafford") from his position on February 9, 1999, for exceeding his authority by writing a kyte regarding another prisoner's problem, but he received no misconduct report. On February 12, 1999, SRCI officials removed another inmate legal assistant from his position and issued him a misconduct report that was later dismissed.
Hunter also claims that defendant Ken Ward ("Ward"), Assistant Superintendent at the SRCI, told him and Stafford that they were terminated because of pending lawsuits against the SRCI and for helping prisoners file complaints. Hunter further claims that he informed defendant Cristy DeButts, Supervisor of Program Services, that prison officials were violating his constitutional rights and their own policies but, after meeting with the defendants, she advised him that no one was willing to overturn Captain Orr's decision to terminate him.
FRCP 56(c) authorizes summary judgment if no genuine issue exists regarding any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The moving party must show an absence of an issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Once the moving party shows the absence of an issue of material fact, the non-moving party must go beyond the pleadings and designate specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 324, 106...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Martel, CIV S-11-0859 GGH P
...240 (3rd Cir. 1975) (inmates expectation of keeping job is not a property interest entitled to due process protection).Hunter v. Heath, 95 F.Supp.2d 1140 (D.Or. 2000), judgment reversed on unrelated ground in an unpublished decision. To the extent that any of the above actions taken by defe......
-
Davis v. Martel, CIV S-11-0859 GGH P
...240 (3rd Cir. 1975) (inmates expectation of keeping job is not a property interest entitled to due process protection).Hunter v. Heath, 95 F.Supp.2d 1140 (D.Or. 2000), judgment reversed on unrelated ground in an unpublished decision. Plaintiff's allegations as presented fail to state a cogn......
-
Maraglino v. California, Case No.: 1:20-cv-00826-SAB (PC)
...a California state prisoner had not shown "a right to prison employment" protected under the Due Process Clause); Hunter v. Heath, 95 F. Supp. 2d 1140, 1147 (D. Or. 2000) ("It is uniformly well established throughout the federal circuit courts that a prisoner's expectation of keeping a spec......
-
Garcia v. Diaz
...a California state prisoner had not shown "a right to prison employment" protected under the Due Process Clause);Hunter v. Heath, 95 F. Supp. 2d 1140, 1147 (D. Or. 2000) ("It is uniformly well established throughout the federal circuit courts that a prisoner's expectation of keeping a speci......
-
[0] U.S. District Court: RETALIATION.
...v. Heath, 95 F.Supp.2d 1140 (D.Or. 2000). A prison inmate brought an action under [sections] 1983 for unlawfully terminating his prison job/assignment as an inmate legal assistant. The district court found that while the inmate's removal did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, or t......
-
U.S. District Court: REMOVAL FROM JOB DUE PROCESS.
...v. Heath 95 F.Supp.2d 1140 (D.Or. 2000). A prison inmate brought an action under [sections] 1983 for unlawfully terminating his prison job/assignment as an inmate legal assistant. The district court found that while the inmate's removal did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, or th......