Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00122/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00122-16/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

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

1 Docket 52 at 1 (emphasis added).

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 1

2:06-CV-0122-RRB-CMK-P

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No. 2:06-CV-0122-RRB-CMK-P

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

At Docket 52 are Defendants Jeanne Woodward, et al.

(“Defendants”) with a Motion for Cross Summary Judgment and

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

move for summary judgment on the grounds that the undisputed

evidence shows that Defendants did not violate Plaintiff’s

constitutional rights and Defendants are entitled to qualified

immunity.”1 The motion is opposed at Docket 54.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

ADONAI EL-SHADDAI,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JEANNE WOODWARD, et al.,

Defendants.

Case 2:06-cv-00122-RRB-CMK Document 56 Filed 07/17/07 Page 1 of 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

2 Id. at 3.

3 Id.

4 Id.

5 Id.

6 Inasmuch as the remainder of the facts are more than

substantially briefed within the applicable pleadings, they are not

repeated herein except as necessary.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 2

2:06-CV-0122-RRB-CMK-P

II. FACTS

Plaintiff Adonai El-Shaddai (“Plaintiff”) claims

Defendants violated his federal constitutional rights under the

First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments “by permitting

correctional staff to dispose of his excess property under a prison

policy developed without a notice and hearing period.”2 Defendants

argue: (1) they have not violated Plaintiff’s constitutional

rights; and (2) “[t]he [High Desert State Prison (the “HDSP”)]

property policy comports with constitutional protections, and only

limits the amount of property a prisoner may possess as necessary

to protect legitimate governmental interests.”3

 Moreover,

Defendants claim: (1) “prison officials are not required to follow

notice and hearing procedures when creating prison policies that do

not have general, statewide applicability”4; and (2) they “acted

under established law, and are therefore entitled to qualified

immunity.”5 The Court agrees.6

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-00122-RRB-CMK Document 56 Filed 07/17/07 Page 2 of 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

7 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).

8 Id. at 323-325.

9 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-9

(1986).

10 Id. at 255.

11 Id. at 248-9.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 3

2:06-CV-0122-RRB-CMK-P

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides

that summary judgment should be granted if there is no genuine

dispute as to material facts and if the moving party is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law. The moving party has the burden of

showing that there is no genuine dispute as to material fact.7 The

moving party need not present evidence; it need only point out the

lack of any genuine dispute as to material fact.8

 Once the moving

party has met this burden, the nonmoving party must set forth

evidence of specific facts showing the existence of a genuine issue

for trial.9

 All evidence presented by the non-movant must be

believed for purposes of summary judgment, and all justifiable

inferences must be drawn in favor of the non-movant.10 However, the

nonmoving party may not rest upon mere allegations or denials, but

must show that there is sufficient evidence supporting the claimed

factual dispute to require a fact-finder to resolve the parties’

differing versions of the truth at trial.11

Case 2:06-cv-00122-RRB-CMK Document 56 Filed 07/17/07 Page 3 of 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

12 See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526 (1984)(“The

recognition of privacy rights for prisoners in their individual

cells simply cannot be reconciled with the concept of incarceration

and the needs and objectives of penal institutions.”). See also,

Savko v. Rollins, 749 F. Supp. 1403, 1414-15 (D. Md. 1990)(“The

requirement that inmates mail confiscated property to a person

outside the institution at the inmate’s own expense is . . . not

violative of the Takings Clause.”). Although not authoritative,

the Court finds the latter case to be particularly persuasive. 

13 Docket 52 at 14. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has

previously determined that:

Prison administrators . . . should be accorded wide

ranging deference in the adoption and execution of

policies and practices that in their judgment are needed

to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain

institutional security.

Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1979). It further determined

that the “due process rights of prisoners . . . are not absolute;

they are subject to reasonable limitation or retraction in light of

the legitimate security concerns of the institution.” Id. at 554

(emphasis added).

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 4

2:06-CV-0122-RRB-CMK-P

IV. DISCUSSION

Having thoroughly reviewed the relevant pleadings in this

matter, the Court finds:

1. Defendants did not violate Plaintiff’s state or

federal rights12;

2. The HDSP “property policy serves the legitimate

correctional goals of preserving the health and well being of

inmates and staff, while limiting the prison’s expense in storing

or mailing inmate property”13;

3. “Defendants were not required to provide the public

with a notice and hearing period[, pursuant to the California

Case 2:06-cv-00122-RRB-CMK Document 56 Filed 07/17/07 Page 4 of 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

14 Id.

15 Id.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 5

2:06-CV-0122-RRB-CMK-P

Administrative Procedure Act,] before adopting a policy that

applied exclusively to [the] HDSP”14; and

4. “Defendants acted reasonably, and are therefore

entitled to qualified immunity.”15

V. CONCLUSION

As a result, and for additional reasons more carefully

articulated within the relevant pleadings, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment at Docket 42

is DENIED;

2. Defendants’ Cross Motion for Summary Judgment at

Docket 52 is GRANTED;

3. Any and all remaining motions are DENIED as moot;

and

4. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

ENTERED this 16th day of July, 2006.

S/RALPH R. BEISTLINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00122-RRB-CMK Document 56 Filed 07/17/07 Page 5 of 5