Wilcox v. Mgmt. & Training Corp.
| Decision Date | 24 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civ. 19-296 KWR/GJF |
| Parties | JOHN WILCOX, Plaintiff, v. MANAGEMENT AND TRAINING CORPORATION, WARDEN R. MARTINEZ, DOES 1-10, SERGEANT ALAYA, EBETH MARTINEZ-CRUZ, and DEPUTY WARDEN SIMMONS, all in their official and individual capacities, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
THE HONORABLE GREGORY J. FOURATT, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF 45 (Motion); see also ECFs 48-49 (Response), 50 (Reply). The Motion presents the question of whether Defendants violated Plaintiff's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they denied him a book that was mailed to his prison address from what was in 2016 a non-approved source. For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that Defendants did not violate Plaintiff's constitutional rights. The Court therefore recommends GRANTING the Motion and DISMISSING Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [ECF 22] and this case WITH PREJUDICE.[1]
I. BACKGROUND[2]
In April 2016, Plaintiff was incarcerated in the Otero County Prison Facility (OCPF). Mot. ¶ 9; ECFs 47 at 1; 48 at ¶ 2. He was the intended recipient of a paperback book entitled Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada (3rd ed.), mailed to him by the book's publisher, Prison Legal News. Mot. ¶¶ 7 9; ECFs 47 at 1; 48 at ¶¶ 2, 5; 49 at 1-2, 10-11. But “[i]n 2016, and prior thereto, to alleviate [various] security concerns, OCPF only allowed [softbound] books [and magazines and newspapers] that were mailed directly from” an “approved vendor list”-an “extensive list ... [that] provided over a million book titles.” Mot. ¶¶ 1-2, 5-6, 10, 13-15, 18-27 (citing, inter alia, ECF 43-9 ()); see ECFs 47 at 7; 48 at 1, 5; 49 at 1-2. Consequently, because the book was mailed from a nonapproved vendor (Prison Legal News), OCPF officials did not allow Plaintiff to receive or possess the book. Mot. ¶¶ 9, 15, 34; ECFs 47 at 1; 48 at 1; 49 at 10-11.
Instead OCPF officials formally notified Plaintiff that he had two options: either (1) “send out [his] book to any outside address at [his] cost” or (2) “donate the book to [the] law library and have access to it when law library is requested.” Mot. ¶ 34; ECF 49 at 10. And “if neither of [these] options [were] chosen” within 14 days, the book would be destroyed. Mot. ¶ 34; ECF 49 at 10. Plaintiff declined to choose either option. Mot. ¶ 35; ECF 49 at 10. Instead of destroying the book, however OCPF officials “placed [the book] in the OCPF library where [Plaintiff] has access to it.” Mot. ¶ 35; ECF 49 at 11.[3] In September 2021, Plaintiff represented that he has been “unaware” that the book was placed in OCPF's library-or that it had been in the prison library system for at least five years. ECF 49 at 10-11. Furthermore, the record contains no evidence that Plaintiff ever attempted to access this book via the means that were authorized in early 2016- including (1) OCPF's “traditional library [or] law library, ” Mot. ¶¶ 28-32; (2) the free “inter-library loan system, ” which allows inmates to “request a book [from another prison library] if OCPF does not have it” in its library of over 19, 000 books, Mot. ¶¶ 29, 33; or (3) an “approved vendor, ” Mot. ¶ 14. See Mot.; ECFs 43-44, 47-49.[4]
Plaintiff nevertheless “pursued both the informal complaint process and the formal grievance process.” Mot. ¶¶ 36-39; ECFs 48 at ¶ 4; 49 at 3-10. In doing so, Plaintiff complained that OCPF violated his First Amendment rights by denying him the opportunity to possess, as his personal inmate property, this book that had arrived from a non-approved vendor. ECFs 22 at 11, 38-39; 48 at ¶¶ 3-5; 49 at 3-4. Prison personnel denied Plaintiff's grievance and, nearly three years later, Plaintiff filed suit in this Court in April 2019. Mot. ¶ 39; ECFs 1; 49 at 3-6.
II. PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff alleges in his Amended Complaint [ECF 22] that Defendants, in their individual and official capacities, violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and are therefore liable for monetary damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Am. Compl. [ECF 22] 1-4, 9.[5] Specifically, he alleges that Defendants violated his First Amendment rights when they prohibited him from having a book that a non-approved vendor sent to him. Id. at 18-20, 26. In addition, he asserts that Defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by not following the required procedures for depriving him of his personal property. Id. at 21-23, 26, 28-29, 31-32, 35. Lastly, he claims that Defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights by treating him differently than other similarly situated inmates, particularly by allowing other inmates to receive books from non-approved vendors. Id. at 24, 26-27, 30, 35; see also ECFs 47 at 9; 48 at 2; 49 at 14.
III. PARTIES' PRIMARY ARGUMENTS
In August 2021, after complying with the Court's Order to File a Martinez Report, see ECFs 38, 43-44, 47, Defendants filed the instant Motion. Mot. 10-25. Defendants contend that “there is no genuine issue of material fact and [they are] entitled to judgment as a matter of law” on all of Plaintiff's claims and that the “Amended Complaint should [thus] be dismissed, with prejudice.” Id. at 1-3, 10, 25.
As to Plaintiff's First Amendment claims, Defendants argue that there is no genuine factual dispute that their approved vendor policy was reasonably related to the “legitimate penological interest of security and resource management.” Id. at 10-22. In support of this argument, Defendants present an affidavit from Warden Martinez [ECF 43-1] that attests to the following:
See also Mot. 3-9 (); ECF 43-1 at 1 ().
As to Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claim, Defendants assert that there is no genuine factual dispute that Plaintiff was given an opportunity “to be heard” before prison officials deprived him of his property interest in the book. Id. at 22-25. In support of this assertion, Defendants present evidence that they (1) gave Plaintiff the opportunity to send his book to a place of his choosing and (2) placed the book in the library when Plaintiff failed to dictate where the book should go. Id. at ¶¶ 34-35 ().
As to Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim, Defendants contend that there is no genuine factual dispute that Plaintiff was “treated the same as all other similarly situated state inmates.” Id. at 22-25. To support this contention, Defendants present evidence from Warden Martinez's affidavit that Plaintiff was “treated the same as any other inmate at OCPF with respect to the application of [their approved vendor policy].” Id. at ¶ 40 (quoting Martinez affidavit).
Regarding the First Amendment claims, Plaintiff does not specifically controvert Defendants' evidence that their approved vendor policy (1) alleviated security concerns regarding the smuggling of contraband, (2) was an effective use of limited prison resources, and (3) still permitted access to a broad range of publications. Compare supra Section III(A) (summarizing the representation in Warden Martinez's regarding the approved vendor policy), with ECFs 47-49 (containing no specific refutations of such evidence). Instead, Plaintiff appears to argue that he has a First Amendment right to personally possess paperback books that are shipped from nonapproved vendors. See ECFs 48 at ¶ 3; 49 at 1-3, 12-14.
Regarding the due process claim, Plaintiff does not specifically controvert Defendants' evidence that they (1) gave Plaintiff an opportunity to send his book to a place of his choosing and (2) placed the book in the library when he failed to dictate where it should go. Compare ¶¶ 3435 (citing to Defendants' evidence), with ECFs 47-49 (containing no specific refutations of such evidence). Plaintiff instead contends that Defendants violated his due process rights by not forwarding his grievance appeal to the “Cabinet Secretary/Designee.” ECFs 48 at ¶ 5; 49 at 3-4, 6-10.
Regarding the equal protection claim, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants “treated [Plaintiff] differently than other inmates similarly situated” because they “allowed other inmates to receive book orders from publishers/vendors that were not on OCPF's approved vendor list, including [Prison Legal News].” ECFs 47 at 9; 48 at 2; 49 at 14. In support of this argument, Plaintiff presents a printout of an online order confirmation from...
To continue reading
Request your trial