Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01404/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01404-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Jesse Washington is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

I.

RELEVANT HISTORY

This action is proceeding against Defendant Samuels for retaliation in violation of the First 

Amendment. 

On August 6, 2015, Defendant Samuels filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 49.) 

Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendant‟s motion on August 31, 2015. (ECF Nos. 57, 58, 61.) 

Defendant filed a reply on September 28, 2015. (ECF No. 69.) 

On August 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 51.) 

Defendant filed an opposition on September 21, 2015. (ECF No. 68.) Plaintiff filed a reply on 

October 5, 2015. (ECF No. 72.) 

JESSE WASHINGTON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

R. SAMUELS,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01404-AWI-SAB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF‟S AND 

DEFENDANT‟S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT BE DENIED

[ECF Nos. 49, 51]

Case 1:12-cv-01404-SAB Document 73 Filed 10/20/15 Page 1 of 17
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

Any party may move for summary judgment, and the Court shall grant summary judgment if 

the movant shows that 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) (quotation marks omitted); Washington Mut. Inc. v. 

U.S., 636 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). Each party‟s position, whether it be that a fact is disputed 

or undisputed, must be supported by (1) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including 

but not limited to depositions, documents, declarations, or discovery; or (2) showing that the materials 

cited do not establish the presence or absence of a genuine dispute or that the opposing party cannot 

produce admissible evidence to support the fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1) (quotation marks omitted). 

The Court may consider other materials in the record not cited to by the parties, but it is not required 

to do so. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3); Carmen v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 

(9th Cir. 2001); accord Simmons v. Navajo Cnty., Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010).

In resolving cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court must consider each party‟s 

evidence. Johnson v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., 658 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2011). Plaintiff bears the 

burden of proof at trial, and to prevail on summary judgment, he must affirmatively demonstrate that 

no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for him. Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 

978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007). Defendants do not bear the burden of proof at trial and in moving for 

summary judgment, they need only prove an absence of evidence to support Plaintiff‟s case. In re 

Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig., 627 F.3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 2010). 

In judging the evidence at the summary judgment stage, the Court does not make credibility 

determinations or weigh conflicting evidence, Soremekun, 509 F.3d at 984 (quotation marks and 

citation omitted), and it must draw all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party 

and determine whether a genuine issue of material fact precludes entry of judgment, Comite de 

Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 657 F.3d 936, 942 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotation 

marks and citation omitted).

In arriving at this recommendation, the Court has carefully reviewed and considered all 

arguments, points and authorities, declarations, exhibits, statements of undisputed facts and responses 

Case 1:12-cv-01404-SAB Document 73 Filed 10/20/15 Page 2 of 17
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

thereto, if any, objections, and other papers filed by the parties. Omission of reference to an argument, 

document, paper, or objection is not to be construed to the effect that this Court did not consider the 

argument, document, paper, or objection. This Court thoroughly reviewed and considered the 

evidence it deemed admissible, material, and appropriate. 

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Summary of Plaintiff’s Complaint

The events described in Plaintiff‟s complaint took place while Plaintiff was incarcerated at 

Kern Valley State Prison in Delano, California (“KVSP”). Plaintiff names R. Samuels (correctional 

officer) as defendant in this action (“Defendant”).

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Samuels harassed Plaintiff. (First Am. Compl. 5.1) In October 

2010, Plaintiff received a vendor package that was processed by Samuels at the “Receiving and 

Release” department. (First Am. Compl. 5-6.) Plaintiff‟s package included food items, which 

Samuels tossed through the Receiving and Release window and onto the ground. (First Am. Compl. 

6.) Plaintiff complained about Samuels‟ actions and threatened to file an administrative grievance 

against Samuels and his co-worker. (First Am. Compl. 6.) Samuels and the co-worker then ordered 

Plaintiff to submit to a clothed body search. (First Am. Compl. 6.) Samuels then escorted Plaintiff to 

his cell and subjected Plaintiff to an unclothed body search, while simultaneously making racial and 

sexual remarks toward Plaintiff. (First Am. Compl. 6-7.) Plaintiff alleges that he was discriminated 

against as an African American Muslim because no other white or Hispanic prisoners were subjected 

to such searches or harassed. (First Am. Compl. 7.)

Plaintiff was allowed to retrieve his package, but contends that a bag of Keebler‟s soft batch 

chocolate chip cookies were missing. (First Am. Compl. 7-8.) Samuels told Plaintiff to contact the 

company that sent the package. (First Am. Compl. 8.) After writing a letter to the company, the 

company instructed Plaintiff to have Samuels contact the company to confirm the issue. (First Am. 

Compl. 8.) Samuels told Plaintiff that he would confirm the issue with the company. (First Am. 

 

1 Citations to Plaintiff‟s complaint will refer to the page numbers as electronically docketed rather than 

the page numbers that appear on the complaint itself.

Case 1:12-cv-01404-SAB Document 73 Filed 10/20/15 Page 3 of 17
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Compl. 8-9.) However, Samuels later told Plaintiff that he “declined” to contact the company. (First 

Am. Compl. 9.) Plaintiff contends that Samuels refused to help Plaintiff with the cookie issue out of 

retaliation against a grievance Plaintiff filed against Samuels for his harassing conduct. (First Am. 

Compl. 9.) 

On January 17, 2011, Samuels threatened to rescind Plaintiff‟s medical chrono for a lower 

bunk and orthopedic shoes after Plaintiff had played a flag football game with other prisoners in the 

exercise yard. (First Am. Compl. 9-10.) Plaintiff also contends that Samuels harassed Plaintiff during 

a medical examination that same day. (First Am. Compl. 10.) Samuels then generated a false Rules 

Violation Report accusing Plaintiff of threatening to harm him. (First Am. Compl. 11.)

B. Parties’ Statement of Undisputed Facts

1. Defendant‟s Undisputed Facts

a. Plaintiff was housed at Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP) during the time period 

relevant to this lawsuit.

b. Officer Samuels occasionally assisted Correctional Officer Williams, who was assigned 

to issue inmate vendor packages on Yard B. Officer Williams was responsible for 

issuing the packages to the inmates, having the packages opened in front of the inmates, 

and having the inmates sign the receipts to indicate they had received all the items in 

the packages. The inmates could then take their packages onto the yard or back to their 

cell. (Samuels Decl. ¶ 2.) 

c. After Plaintiff had taken away his opened package, he later approached Officer 

Samuels to complain that his package was missing some cookies. Plaintiff wanted 

Officer Samuels to call the vendor and obtain cookies for him.2 (Samuels Decl. ¶ 3.) 

d. Plaintiff inmate [sic] filed an inmate appeal (log number KVSP-10-02146) against 

Officers Williams and Samuels on October 24, 2010, alleging harassment and 

retaliation while Plaintiff was trying to receive his package at the Receiving and 

Release Window. (Samuels Decl. ¶ 4.) 

 

2

Plaintiff attempts to this dispute this fact by adding he made both Samuels and Williams aware of the missing cookies. 

Such additional fact does not dispute the fact as presented by Defendant Samuels. 

Case 1:12-cv-01404-SAB Document 73 Filed 10/20/15 Page 4 of 17
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e. The inquiry at the second level of review found that Officer Williams and Samuels did 

not violate CDCR policy. Dissatisfied, inmate Washington submitted his appeal to the 

Director‟s Level for further review. (Samuels Decl. ¶ 5.) 

f. In April 2011, following review of all submitted documentation and supporting 

arguments of the parties, including the contents of a confidential inquiry, no staff 

misconduct was found, and the Director‟s Level Appeal Decision denying this appeal 

was issued to inmate Washington. (Samuels Decl. ¶ 6.) 

g. Officer Samuels informed the nurse that he had observed Plaintiff on the yard playing 

football, and he was sprinting, jumping and diving for the ball. Plaintiff then stated, 

“Yeah, I tripped while playing football.” (Samuels Decl. ¶ 7.) 

h. Officer Samuels prepared Rules Violation Report (RVR) FB-11-01-046 regarding this 

incident with Plaintiff under Title 15, section 3005(d)(1) for Threat on Staff. (Samuels 

Decl. ¶ 10.) 

i. As reviewing supervisor, Correctional Sergeant Nuckles reviewed this RVR, classified 

it as “serious,” and referred it for hearing with a Senior Hearing Officer (SHO). 

(Samuels Decl. ¶ 11.) 

2. Plaintiff‟s Undisputed Facts3

a. Plaintiff Washington was incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison at all times relevant 

to his Complaint.

b. That Plaintiff submitted a CDCR 602 Appeal/Staff Complaint against Defendant and 

co-worker Williams on October 24, 2010, Log # KVSP-10-02146, alleging 

discrimination, retaliation, and sexual harassment by both Officers on October 20, 2015 

Cloth and unclothed body Searches.

c. Plaintiff did not received [sic] any Rules Violation Report (RVR) or any other 

disciplinary Write-ups on 10/20/2010 from Defendant Samuels or co-worker Williams.

 

3

Defendant‟s objections to Plaintiff‟s statements of fact numbers 3 and 7 as immaterial are sustained and such statements 

are omitted on that basis. 

Case 1:12-cv-01404-SAB Document 73 Filed 10/20/15 Page 5 of 17
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

d. Plaintiff made Defendant Samuels and co-worker Williams aware of missing bag of 

Cokkies [sic] from the Walkenhorst‟s Package issued on 10/20/2010.

e. Plaintiff made Defendant Samuels and co-worker Williams aware of missing bag of 

Cokkies [sic] from the Walkenhorst‟s Package issued on 10/20/2010.

f. On January 17, 2011 Defendant Samuels was assigned third watch/shift 1400 to 2200 

hours Unit Floor Officer at Plaintiff‟s assigned housing unit Facility „B‟ Building#7 

(FBB#7).

g. On January 17, 2011 Plaintiff was Medically examined by Licenced [sic] Vocational 

Nurse (LVN) at (FBB#7) at approximately 1750 hours due to injuries to Knees, Hips 

and Right Foot, sustained during A.M. Exercise Yard time.

h. On January 17, 2011 Defendant Samuels generated a CDC-115 (RVR) Log #FB-11-01-

046 alleging that Plaintiff threatened to do harm to him through Plaintiff‟s Civilian 

Familymembers [sic].

i. At the time Defendant Samuels alleged that he was threatened by Plaintiff at (FBB#7) 

during third watch/shift 1400 to 2200 hours, he did not activate his institutional 

Personal Alarm nor immediately contact his Supervising Officers (Sergenat [sic] or 

Lieutenant) to report the alleged threat from and [sic] inmate (Plaintiff).

j. That no other Staffmember [sic] witnessed Plaintiff‟s alleged threated again Defendant 

Samuels‟ person on January 17, 2011.

k. That on February 7, 2011 the Senior Hearing Officer (SHO) Lieutenant (Lt) E. 

Campagna conducted the CDC-115 Rules Violation Report (RVR) Log#FB-11-01-046 

Plaintiff‟s alleged THREATENNING DEFENDANT SAMUELS on January 17, 2011 

and (SHO) (Lt) Campagna dismissed (RVR) Log#FB-11-01-046 in its entirety for 

insufficient evidence to sustained a guilty findings threat upon Defendant Samuels‟ 

person by Plaintiff.

Case 1:12-cv-01404-SAB Document 73 Filed 10/20/15 Page 6 of 17
7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

l. Defendant Samuels did not file any grievances with his Agency Kern Valley State 

Prison (KVSP) objection (SHO) (Lt) Campagna dismissal of CDC-115 (RVR) 

Log#FB-11-01-046 on February 7, 2011, for Plaintiff‟s alleged threat upon his person.4 

m. That on January 24, 2011 the Defendant Samuels was assigned to work at Plaintiff‟s 

Housing Unit (FBB#7) third watch/shift 1400 to 2200 hours and did not object to being 

subjected to the Physical Presence of Plaintiff, an inmate that he alleged had threatened 

to do harm to him through familymembers [sic] on January 17, 2011.5 

n. Again on January 31, 2011 Defendant [sic] Samuels was assigned to Plaintiff‟s 

Housing Unit (FBB#7) third watch/shift as 1400 to 2200 Unit Floor Officer and again 

did not object to being placed into a security threat from an inmate (Plaintiff) who had 

allegedly threatened his person on January 17, 2011, some two weeks later at the same 

housing unit.6 

o. Defendant Samuel was employed as Correctional Officer at (KVSP) doing [sic] all 

relevant times alleged herein, and was acting under the authority of State Law.

C. Retaliation

“Prisoners have a First Amendment right to file grievances against prison officials and to be 

free from retaliation for doing so.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing

Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009)). Also protected by the First Amendment is the 

right to pursue civil rights litigation in federal court without retaliation. Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 

1090, 1104 (9th Cir. 2011). “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 

 

4

Defendant‟s objection to this statement of fact as immaterial is overruled, as the Court cannot determine this fact is 

immaterial.

5

Defendant‟s objection to this statement of fact as immaterial is overruled, as the Court cannot determine this fact is 

immaterial. 

6

Defendant‟s objection to this statement of fact as immaterial is overruled, as the Court cannot determine this fact is 

immaterial.

Case 1:12-cv-01404-SAB Document 73 Filed 10/20/15 Page 7 of 17
8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

inmate‟s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a 

legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005).

Retaliatory motive may be shown by the timing of the allegedly retaliatory act and 

inconsistency with previous actions, as well as direct evidence. Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1288-

1289 (9th Cir. 2003). However, mere speculation that defendants acted out of retaliation is not 

sufficient. Wood v. Yordy, 753 F.3d 899, 904-905 (9th Cir. 2014) (affirming grant of summary 

judgment where no evidence that defendants knew of plaintiff‟s prior lawsuit or that defendants‟ 

disparaging remarks were made in reference to prior lawsuit). 

Retaliation claims brought by prisoners must be evaluated in light of concerns over “excessive 

judicial involvement in day-to-day prison management, which „often squander[s] judicial resources 

with little offsetting benefit to anyone.‟” Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting 

Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 482 (1995)). In particular, courts should “„afford appropriate 

deference and flexibility‟ to prison officials in the evaluation of proffered legitimate penological 

reasons for conduct alleged to be retaliatory.” Id. (quoting Sandin, 515 U.S. at 482). 

D. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Plaintiff moves for judgment on the ground that Defendant Samuels generated a false RVR 

Log No. FB-11-01-0146 on January 17, 2011, stating that Plaintiff threatened to subject him to 

physical harm through civilian family members when Plaintiff was receiving medical emergency 

treatment at (FBB#7) during third watch/shift 1400 to 2200. After Defendant Samuels alleged to have 

been threatened by Plaintiff on January 17, 2011, he failed to activate his assigned institutional 

security alarm or immediately contact his supervising officers (sergeant or lieutenant) to report such 

serious threats upon an officer.

Plaintiff further argues that on January 24 and 31, 2011, Defendant Samuels was reassigned to 

Plaintiff‟s housing unit (FBB#7) and did not voice any security concerns about being in an 

environment where he was just threatened by an inmate who allegedly said that he intended to do 

harm to him through civil family members, less than one week from the threatening statements. 

Finally, the false (RVR Log # FB-11-01-0146) was dismissed in its entirety on February 7, 2011, by 

Lieutenant E. Campagna on insufficient evidence to sustain a charge of threat on a peace officer. 

Case 1:12-cv-01404-SAB Document 73 Filed 10/20/15 Page 8 of 17
9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff reasons that it is evidence that due to Defendant Samuels‟ failure to object to the dismissal of 

his generated false RVR, this Court should grant Plaintiff‟s motion for summary judgment as a matter 

of law on his claim of retaliation. 

E. Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Defendants oppose Plaintiff‟s motion for summary judgment because Plaintiff “cannot 

demonstrate that, based upon the undisputed facts of this case, he is entitled to summary judgment as a 

matter of law.” (ECF No. 68, Opp‟n at 1:22-24.) 

Defendant argues that despite Plaintiff‟s claim that Defendant drafted RVR Log No. FB-11-01-

046 because Plaintiff filed an inmate appeal alleging staff misconduct on the part of Samuels, Plaintiff 

cannot establish that Defendant Samuels‟ actions lacked a legitimate penological goal or chilled the 

exercise of Plaintiff‟s rights under the First Amendment.

F. Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendants’ Opposition

In reply, Plaintiff contends his summary judgment motion should be granted in its entirety 

based on the undisputed facts of this case and Plaintiff‟s clear demonstration that Defendant Samuel‟s 

actions were motived by Plaintiff‟s protected right to file a grievance. Plaintiff submits that he has 

demonstrated that Defendant Samuel‟s own supervising officials stated that his actions did not 

substantiate sufficient facts to warrant Plaintiff to be found guilty of RVR Log Number FB-11-01-046, 

threat on a peace officer, and there was no legitimate correctional purpose for issuance of the RVR. 

G. Findings on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Plaintiff bears the burden of proof at trial. To prevail on his motion for summary judgment 

against Defendants, Plaintiff must affirmatively demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could 

other than for him. Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007). If Plaintiff 

meets his initial burden, Defendants are required to set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine 

issue for trial. 

Plaintiff‟s claim is premised on retaliatory conduct by filing a false RVR Log No. FB-11-01-

046 for threats made against Defendant Samuels because Plaintiff had previously filed an inmate 

grievance. Plaintiff has a protected First Amendment right to file a grievance. Watison v. Carter, 669 

F.3d at 1114. However, Plaintiff must show that his filing of the grievance was the substantial 

Case 1:12-cv-01404-SAB Document 73 Filed 10/20/15 Page 9 of 17
10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

motivation for Defendant‟s actions taken in relation to the issuance of a RVR. Brodheim v. Cry, 584 

F.3d at 1271 (citing Sorrano‟s Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310, 1314 (9th Cir. 1989). 

In opposition, Defendant Samuel‟s declares, in pertinent part, as follows:

On January 17, 2011, I escorted [Plaintiff] form his cell to the medical examination 

room as requested by medical staff. Inmate Washington was telling the nurse that he 

had hurt his foot and skinned up his knees by tripping and falling on the yard. I 

informed the nurse that I observed [Plaintiff] on the yard playing football, and he was 

sprinting, jumping and diving for the ball. [Plaintiff] then stated “Yeah, I tripped while 

playing football.” The nurse went to the other office to use the phone, at which time 

[Plaintiff] said to me, “You‟re a faggot and I‟m gonna get your punk ass and I got 

family, and they‟ll be taking care of it you bitch.” I informed [Plaintiff] that I was 

going to be writing him up for Threats on Staff. [Plaintiff] was escorted back to his cell 

without further incident. 

[Plaintiff] was restrained during the escort. I did not activate my personal alarm 

because I did not believe that [Plaintiff‟s] verbal threats posed an imminent danger to 

myself or others at that time. Other than situations such as medical emergencies or 

threats of imminent harm, it is within my discretion whether to activate my personal 

alarm, including the instance here where [Plaintiff] threatened me.

I was concerned, however, about my and my family‟s safety because [Plaintiff] 

threatened that he had family who would “take care of it,” which I understood to mean 

revenge or retaliation against me.

I prepared a Rules Violation Report (RVR) FB-11-01-046 regarding this incident with 

[Plaintiff] under Title 15, section 3005(d)(1) for Threat on Staff. [citation]

As reviewing supervisor, Correctional Sergeant Nuckles reviewed this RVR, classified 

it as “serious,” and referred it for hearing with a Senior Hearing Officer (SHO).

Although Plaintiff pled not guilty to the RVR, he did not make a statement at the RVR 

hearing or deny he made those threats against Officer Samuels. Plaintiff was 

subsequently found not guilty of the RVR and the case was dismissed based on 

insufficient evidence to support the charge because Plaintiff was escorted back to his 

cell without incident and no alarm was sounded.

My decision to prepare RVR FB-11-01-046 regarding [Plaintiff] was based on his 

threat to have his family harm me, and my fear for my and my family‟s safety. Based 

on my experience, if Sergeant Nuckles, as reviewing supervisor, had determined that 

this RVR was inappropriate, he would not have signed it. 

(ECF No. 49-5, Samuels Decl. ¶¶ 7-13.) 

Case 1:12-cv-01404-SAB Document 73 Filed 10/20/15 Page 10 of 17
11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

In contrast, Plaintiff contends that the RVR was issued only in retaliation for filing a prior 

inmate grievance. (ECF No. 51, Plaintiff Decl. ¶¶ 26-27.) 

Based on the competing evidence before the Court, Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of 

demonstrating that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and his motion for summary judgment 

should be denied. 

H. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

Defendant moves for summary judgment because his preparation of the RVR was based on 

Plaintiff‟s threat against him, and Plaintiff‟s exercise of his First Amendment rights were not chilled. 

In the alternative, Defendant argues he is entitled to qualified immunity. 

I. Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Plaintiff contends the facts clearly show that Defendant Samuels‟ actions were not in 

accordance with his penological interest or institutional goals, but was done with ill will and solely for 

the purpose of harassing Plaintiff, causing a chilling effect on Plaintiff exercise of his First 

Amendment rights. Plaintiff specifically contends and reiterates that Defendant Samuels harassed 

Plaintiff. Plaintiff received a vendor package that was processed by Samuels and another officer at the 

“Receiving and Release” department. Plaintiff‟s package included food items, which Samuels tossed 

through the Receiving and Release window and onto the ground. Plaintiff complained about Samuels‟ 

actions and threatened to file an administrative grievance against Samuels and his co-worker. Samuels 

and the co-worker then ordered Plaintiff to submit to a clothed body search. Samuels then escorted 

Plaintiff to his cell and subjected Plaintiff to an unclothed body search, which resulted in 

discrimination, retaliation and sexual harassment. 

Plaintiff was allowed to retrieve his package, but contends that a bag of Keebler‟s soft batch 

chocolate chip cookies were missing. Samuels told Plaintiff to contact the company that sent the 

package. After writing a letter to the company, the company instructed Plaintiff to have Samuels 

contact the company to confirm the issue. Samuels told Plaintiff that he would confirm the issue with 

the company. However, Samuels later told Plaintiff that he “declined” to contact the company. 

Plaintiff contends that Samuels refused to help Plaintiff with the cookie issue out of retaliation against 

a grievance Plaintiff filed against Samuels for his harassing conduct. 

Case 1:12-cv-01404-SAB Document 73 Filed 10/20/15 Page 11 of 17
12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

On January 17, 2011, Samuels requested that the nurse rescind Plaintiff‟s medical chrono for a 

lower bunk and orthopedic shoes after Plaintiff had played a flag football game with other prisoners in 

the exercise yard. Samuels then generated the false RVR accusing Plaintiff of threatening to harm 

him. 

Plaintiff submits that where factual disputes exist as to the parties‟ conduct or motive, the case 

cannot be resolved at summary judgment or on qualified immunity grounds. 

J. Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition

Defendant argues that Plaintiff‟s “[o]pposition makes numerous irrelevant and conclusory 

claims of equal protection violations and retaliation against Defendant Officer Samuels; however, 

[Plaintiff] does not deny that he used profanity against Officer Samuels and threatened to harm him 

and his family, resulting in Officer Samuels‟s preparation of a Rules Violation Report (RVR) against 

[Plaintiff] for threats to staff. [Plaintiff] has not met his burden to oppose summary judgment because 

he has failed to demonstrate that the RVR did not advance a legitimate correctional goal of 

maintaining safety and order in a prison, nor demonstrate that the RVR chilled his exercise of his First 

Amendment rights. Officer Samuels is also entitled to qualified immunity because he acted lawfully 

and reasonably in preparing a RVR based on his concern for his and his family‟s safety following 

[Plaintiff‟s] threats.” (ECF No. 69, Reply at 1:21-2:2.) 

K. Analysis of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Defendant Samuels moves for summary judgment on the ground that a legitimate penological 

goal was served by the issuance of the RVR, dated January 17, 2011, for threats against staff, and 

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any chilling effect on his rights under the First Amendment. 

There is no dispute that Plaintiff‟s right to file a grievance was protected conduct under the 

First Amendment. In addition, there is not dispute that Plaintiff filed an inmate grievance against 

Defendant Samuels and officer Williams on October 24, 2010 (of which Defendant Samuels was 

clearly aware), alleging harassment and retaliation while Plaintiff was trying to receive his package at 

the Receiving and Release window. (Samuels Decl. ¶ 4.) 

///

///

Case 1:12-cv-01404-SAB Document 73 Filed 10/20/15 Page 12 of 17
13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1. Legitimate Penological Correctional Goal 

The issuance of a false RVR against an inmate constitutes adverse action. Watison, 668 F.3d 

at 1114-1115; Brodheim, 584 F.3d at 1269. However, Plaintiff must demonstrate that the filing of his 

grievance was the substantial or motivating factor behind the issuance of the RVR on January 17, 

2011. In this circuit, Plaintiff need “only put forth evidence of retaliatory motive that, taken in the 

light most favorable to him, presents a genuine issue of material fact as to” Defendant‟s motivation. 

Brodheim, 584 F.3d at 1271 (citing Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d at 1289. This requires Plaintiff to offer 

either direct evidence of retaliatory motive or at least one of three general types of circumstantial 

evidence: (1) proximity of time between the protected conduct and the alleged retaliation, (2) 

expressed opposition to the conduct, or (3) other evidence that the reasons proffered by Defendants for 

the adverse action were false and pretextual. McCollum v. California Dep‟t of Corr. & Rehab., 647 

F.3d 870, 882 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Allen v. Iranon, 283 F.3d 1070, 1077 (9th Cir. 2002). 

In addition, in evaluating the existence of a legitimate correctional goal, there must be a valid, 

rational connection between the action and the legitimate neutral governmental interest put forward to 

justify it. Brodheim, 584 F.3d at 1272-1273 (citing Shaw v. Murphy, 532 U.S. 223, 228 (2001). In 

making this determination, courts should consider (1) the existence of alternate means of exercising 

the right available to inmates; (2) the impact accommodation of the asserted constitutional right will 

have on guards and other inmates, and on the allocation of prison resources generally; and (3) the 

absence of ready alternatives available to the prison for achieving the governmental objectives. Shaw, 

532 U.S. at 228.

On January 17, 2011, Defendant Samuels issued Plaintiff an RVR for threatening staff, which 

stated that on January 17, 2011, while escorting Plaintiff from his cell to the medical examination 

room in the rotunda area, Plaintiff was telling the nurse that he had hurt his foot and skinned up his 

knees by tripping and falling on the yard. Defendant Samuels informed the nurse that he observed 

Plaintiff on the yard playing football and he was sprinting, jumping and diving for the ball. Plaintiff 

then stated, “Yeah, I tripped while playing football.” When the nurse went to the other officer to use 

the phone, Plaintiff told Defendant Samuels “You‟re a faggot and I‟m gonna get your punk ass and I 

Case 1:12-cv-01404-SAB Document 73 Filed 10/20/15 Page 13 of 17
14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

got family, and they‟ll be taking care of it you bitch.” Samuels informed Plaintiff that he was going to 

issue a rules violation report for threats on staff. (ECF No. 49-5, Ex. B.) 

At the hearing on the RVR, Plaintiff pled not guilty and declined to make a statement. Plaintiff 

was found not guilty because the RVR did not substantiate a threat as Plaintiff was escorted back to 

his cell without incident and no alarm was sounded. (ECF No. 49-5, Ex. B.) 

Defendant Samuels submits that the RVR was issued because of the threats Plaintiff made 

against Samuels and his family which Samuels understood “to mean revenge or retaliation against 

me.” (Samuels Decl. ¶ 9.) However, Plaintiff submits the RVR was false and issued in retaliation for 

having filed a prior inmate grievance against Defendant Samuels. 

Defendant‟s argument that Plaintiff did not deny making the threating statements at his RVR 

hearing is not persuasive. Plaintiff pled not guilty and declined to make a statement and was thereafter 

found not guilty. Plaintiff cannot now be faulted in a civil rights action for not denying making such 

statements when there is no such requirement. 

Defendant also argues that his supervisor, correctional sergeant Nuckles reviewed the RVR, 

classified it as “serious,” and referred it for hearing with a Senior Hearing Officer. Defendant submits 

that based on his experience, if Sergeant Nuckles, as reviewing supervisor, had determined that this 

RVR was inappropriate, he would not have signed it. The Court does not find merit in Defendant‟s 

argument. Defendant Samuels argument is based on pure speculation, without any evidentiary 

support. In any event, the fact that the supervisor reviewed the RVR and submitted it for hearing, does 

not overcome the fact that Defendants Samuels may have independently issued the RVR in retaliation.

While the discipline of inmates for threats made against prison staff certainly on its face serves 

a legitimate penological interest, there is a genuine issue of fact as to whether the issuance of the RVR 

in this instance was issued for such legitimate correctional purposes or whether it was issued in 

retaliation. It is undisputed that only Defendant Samuels and Plaintiff were present when the alleged 

threat was communicated, and based on the competing evidence before the Court, there is sufficient 

evidence to support a rational inference of pretext and Defendant‟s motion for summary judgment 

cannot be granted. 

///

Case 1:12-cv-01404-SAB Document 73 Filed 10/20/15 Page 14 of 17
15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2. Chilling of Plaintiff‟s First Amendment Rights

Defendant argues that his preparation of the RVR did not chill Plaintiff‟s exercise of his First 

Amendment right to file inmate appeals. Defendant submits that of the 34 inmate appeals Plaintiff 

filed at KVSP from 2009 through June 2012, at least 11 of them were initiated, or submitted for a 

subsequent level of review, after January 2011, which was after Defendant Samuels‟ preparation of the 

RVR on January 17, 2011. 

Certainly the issuance of a false RVR in retaliation for protected conduct of filing an inmate 

grievance would deter a person of ordinary firmness from engaging in such protected conduct, and it is 

more than minimal harm. See Rhodes, 408 F.3d at 568-569 (holding that the proper First Amendment 

inquiry asks whether official‟s acts would chill person of ordinary firmness from future First 

Amendment activities). The fact that Plaintiff was found not guilty of the RVR and subsequently filed 

other inmate grievances does not negate the finding of a chilling effect on the exercise of his First 

Amendment rights. See, e.g., Rhodes, 408 F.3d at 568 (speech can be chilled even when not 

completely silenced); see also Mendocino Envtl Ctr v. Mendocino County, 192 F.3d 1283, 1300 (9th 

Cir. 1999) (noting “it would be unjust to allow a defendant to escape liability for a First Amendment 

violation merely because an unusually determined plaintiff persists in his protected activity, we 

conclude the proper inquiry asks „whether an official‟s acts would chill or silence a person of ordinary 

firmness from future First Amendment activities.‟”) (citations omitted). The issuance of a false rules 

violation report in retaliation for the exercise of one‟s rights under the First Amendment demonstrates 

an intent to inhibit Plaintiff‟s First Amendment rights. Mendocino Envtl. Ctr., 192 F.2d at 1300. 

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, there is a genuine issue of 

material fact as to whether Defendant Samuels issued the RVR to further a legitimate penological 

correctional goal or whether the RVR was issued in retaliation for Plaintiff prior filing of an inmate 

grievance against Defendant Samuels and Officer Williams. McCollum, 647 F.3d at 882. 

Consequently, Defendant Samuel‟s motion for summary judgment should be denied. 

3. Qualified Immunity

Defendant argues he is entitled to qualified immunity, which shields government officials from 

civil damages unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of 

Case 1:12-cv-01404-SAB Document 73 Filed 10/20/15 Page 15 of 17
16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). 

“Qualified immunity balances two important interests - the need to hold public officials accountable 

when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, 

and liability when they perform their duties reasonably,” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 

(2009), and it protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law,”

Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986). “[T]he qualified immunity inquiry is separate from the 

constitutional inquiry” and “has a further dimension.” Estate of Ford v. Ramirez-Palmer, 301 F.3d 

1043, 1049-50 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 205 (2001)) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). “The concern of the immunity inquiry is to acknowledge that reasonable mistakes can 

be made. . . .” Estate of Ford, 301 F.3d at 1049 (citing Saucier at 205) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). 

In resolving a claim of qualified immunity, courts must determine whether, taken in the light 

most favorable to the plaintiff, the defendant=s conduct violated a constitutional right, and if so, 

whether the right was clearly established. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201; Mueller v. Auker, 576 F.3d 979, 

993 (9th Cir. 2009). While often beneficial to address in that order, courts have discretion to address 

the two-step inquiry in the order they deem most suitable under the circumstances. Pearson, 555 U.S. 

at 236 (overruling holding in Saucier that the two-step inquiry must be conducted in that order, and the 

second step is reached only if the court first finds a constitutional violation); Mueller, 576 F.3d at 993-

94.

The law for a claim of retaliation was clearly established as of January 17, 2011 (the date at 

issue). In this case, there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Defendant Samuels 

violated Plaintiff‟s First Amendment rights. Such unresolved issues of fact are also material to a 

proper determination of the reasonableness of Defendant Samuel‟s belief in the legality of his actions. 

If Plaintiff‟s version of the facts is resolved by a jury in his favor, a reasonable officer would have 

understood that issuing a false rules violation report in retaliation for filing a previous grievance would 

be unlawful. Accordingly, Defendant Samuels is not entitled to qualified immunity. 

///

///

Case 1:12-cv-01404-SAB Document 73 Filed 10/20/15 Page 16 of 17
17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IV.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff‟s motion for summary judgment is DENIED; and

2. Defendant‟s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days after 

being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written objections with 

the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge‟s Findings and 

Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 

may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 

2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 19, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01404-SAB Document 73 Filed 10/20/15 Page 17 of 17