Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00211/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00211-8/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DESHA CARTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. ADKINSON,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-0211-LJO DLB-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE GRANTED 

(Doc. 42) 

OBJECTIONS DUE AUGUST 20, 2007

I. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s amended complaint,

filed March 7, 2007, against defendant Adkinson (“defendant”) for retaliation. On January 8,

2007, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed an opposition on February

2, 2007 and defendant filed a reply on February 13, 2007. Plaintiff filed a sur-reply on March 2,

2007.

B. Legal Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when it is demonstrated that there exists no genuine

issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Under summary judgment practice, the moving party 

[A]lways bears the initial responsibility of informing the district

court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of

“the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and

Case 1:05-cv-00211-LJO -DLB Document 49 Filed 07/23/07 Page 1 of 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

2

admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,” which it

believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material

fact.

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). “[W]here the nonmoving party will bear the

burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue, a summary judgment motion may properly be made

in reliance solely on the ‘pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on

file.’” Id. Indeed, summary judgment should be entered, after adequate time for discovery and

upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of

an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at

trial. Id. at 322. “[A] complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the

nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.” Id. In such a

circumstance, summary judgment should be granted, “so long as whatever is before the district

court demonstrates that the standard for entry of summary judgment, as set forth in Rule 56(c), is

satisfied.” Id. at 323.

If the moving party meets its initial responsibility, the burden then shifts to the opposing

party to establish that a genuine issue as to any material fact actually does exist. Matsushita Elec.

Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). In attempting to establish the

existence of this factual dispute, the opposing party may not rely upon the denials of its

pleadings, but is required to tender evidence of specific facts in the form of affidavits, and/or

admissible discovery material, in support of its contention that the dispute exists. Rule 56(e);

Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586 n.11. The opposing party must demonstrate that the fact in

contention is material, i.e., a fact that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing

law, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pacific

Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987), and that the dispute is genuine, i.e.,

the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could

return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Wool v. Tandem Computers, Inc., 818 F.2d 1433, 1436

(9th Cir. 1987).

In the endeavor to establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party need not

establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. It is sufficient that “the claimed factual

Case 1:05-cv-00211-LJO -DLB Document 49 Filed 07/23/07 Page 2 of 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 did not file his own separate statement of disputed facts. However, plaintiff admitted and/or 1

denied the facts set forth by defendant in his opposition. These undisputed facts are therefore taken from defendant’s

statement and plaintiff’s opposition. A verified opposition to a motion for summary judgment may also be

considered as an opposing affidavit for purposes of the summary judgment rule if it is based on facts within the

pleader’s personal knowledge. Johnson v. Meltzer, 134 F.3d 1393, 1399-1400 (9th Cir. 1998). 

3

dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties’ differing versions of the truth at

trial.” T.W. Elec. Serv., 809 F.2d at 631. Thus, the “purpose of summary judgment is to ‘pierce

the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial.’” 

Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) advisory committee’s note on 1963

amendments).

In resolving the summary judgment motion, the court examines the pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if

any. Rule 56(c). The evidence of the opposing party is to be believed, Anderson, 477 U.S. at

255, and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts placed before the Court must

be drawn in favor of the opposing party, Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (citing United States v.

Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962) (per curiam). Nevertheless, inferences are not drawn out

of the air, and it is the opposing party's obligation to produce a factual predicate from which the

inference may be drawn. Richards v. Nielsen Freight Lines, 602 F. Supp. 1224, 1244-45 (E.D.

Cal. 1985), aff’d, 810 F.2d 898, 902 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Finally, to demonstrate a genuine issue, the opposing party “must do more than simply

show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. Where the record taken as a

whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no ‘genuine

issue for trial.’” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (citation omitted).

C. Undisputed Facts1

1. Desha Cater is a state prisoner who, at all times relevant to this action, was in the custody

of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) at California

State Prison Corcoran (“Corcoran”). Defendant’s Ex. B.

2. At all times relevant to this action, Carter was confined in the Security Housing Unit

Case 1:05-cv-00211-LJO -DLB Document 49 Filed 07/23/07 Page 3 of 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

4

(“SHU”) at Corcoran. Ex. B.

3. At all times relevant to this action, D. Adkinson was employed by CDCR as a

correctional officer at Corcoran. Ex. A, ¶ 1.

4. At all times relevant to this action, Adkinson’s duties at Corcoran involved inspecting

inmate property to ensure it complied with the inventory requirements of Title 15 of the

California Code of Regulations and Operation Procedure 806. Ex. A, ¶ 2.

5. On January 14, 2004, Carter’s property was processed by Officer Alafa. Ex. C.

6. Inmates housed in SHU are only allowed to possess the property identified in Operational

Procedure 806, section VII(C)(4). Ex., A ¶ 3; Ex. J.

7. If SHU inmate property is identified as unauthorized, the inmate has 30 days to acquire

funds to send the property elsewhere. Failure to provide sufficient funds to cover the cost

of shipping will result in the unauthorized property being disposed of pursuant to

institutional procedures. Ex. A, ¶ 4.

8. On January 14, 2004, Carter was issued the property authorized by Alafa. Ex. C.

9. Carter also received a property disposition form, which described all of the property

which was unauthorized and therefore confiscated pursuant to Title 15 of the California

Department of Regulations and Operational Procedure 806. Ex. C.

10. The property disposition form issued to Carter indicated that all property identified as

unauthorized may be disposed of pursuant to Title 15 of the California Department of

Regulations, § 3191. Ex. C.

11. Adkinson did not participate in the processing or issuance of Carter’s property on January

14, 2004. Ex. A, ¶ 5.

12. On January 21, 2004, Carter filed an inmate grievance regarding the issuance of his

property which was received by Adkison on January 28, 2004. Ex. D; Ex. A ¶ 6.

13. On January 27, 2004, Carter filed a second grievance regarding the issuance of his

property. Ex. E.

14. Between February 9, 2004 and April 17, 2004, Carter did not have any money in his trust

account. Ex. F; Ex. A ¶ 14.

Case 1:05-cv-00211-LJO -DLB Document 49 Filed 07/23/07 Page 4 of 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

5

15. On February 11, 2004, Adkison responded to Carter’s first grievance. Carter was advised

that all unauthorized property must be mailed home at the inmate’s expense or disposed

of. In addition, Adkison indicated that the failure to acquire sufficient funds to send

unauthorized property home by February 21, 2004, would result in property being subject

to disposal. Ex. D; Ex. A ¶ 7.

16. On March 30, 2004, Adkinson issued Carter a CDC 128-B, which advised him of the

pending disposal of his property. Adkinson advised Carter that: (1) failure to obtain

sufficient funds for shipping the property by April 15, 2004, would result in the property

being disposed of pursuant to institutional procedure; (2) the cost to ship the property

would be approximately $60.00; and (3) Carter’s trust account was overdrawn by $62.17. 

Ex. G; Ex. A ¶ 9.

17. In April 2004, Adkinson searched Carter’s property for the items addressed in Carter’s

grievances dated January 21 and 27, 2004. Ex. A ¶ 10.

18. After conducting the search, Adkinson provided Officer J. Froley with all property

addressed in Carter’s grievances dated January 21 and 27, 2004.

19. On April 6, 2004, Froley issued Carter the property located by Adkinson. Ex. G.

20. After April 6, 2004, Adkinson believed Carter had been issued all of the property he was

permitted to possess pursuant to Title 15 and Operational Procedure 806, as well as all of

the property addressed in his grievances. Ex. A ¶ 12.

21. On April 12, 2006, Adkinson granted Carter’s second appeal. At that time, Adkinson

states that believed that all of Carter’s grievances had been resolved. Ex. A ¶ 13; Ex. E.

22. On April 16, 2004, Adkinson authorized the disposal of Carter’s property because Carter

did not have the funds to ship his property home. Ex. A ¶ 15.

23. On April 16, 2004, Carter’s property was disposed of. Ex. C.

24. On May 30, 2004, Adkison received Carter’s third grievance. Ex. H; Ex. A ¶ 16.

D. Retaliation Claim

In his amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendant Adkinson destroyed his

property in retaliation for his filing adminsitrative grievances. Plaintiff alleges that on January

Case 1:05-cv-00211-LJO -DLB Document 49 Filed 07/23/07 Page 5 of 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

6

14, 2004, he arrived at Corcoran and was placed in the SHU on November 12, 2003. Plaintiff

alleges his personal property was filtered through the property room staff and searched. Plaintiff

alleges he only received a small portion of his property on January 21, 2004 and was informed he

would have to send the remainder home. Plaintiff filed an inmate appeal regarding his property

on January 25, 2004. Plaintiff alleges that on January 27, 2004, defendant Adkinson came to his

cell and told him that if he complained further, he would dispose of plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff

alleges that when he pursued his appeal, defendant disposed of his property in retaliation for his

protected activity and for no legitimate penological purpose. Plaintiff continued to purse his

appeal.

Plaintiff contends that on April 6, 2004, Officer Froley brought two (2) bags of his

personal property to the building for which plaintiff signed. Plaintiff contends he received funds

on April 27, 2004 to pay for the postage to send his unauthorized property home. Plaintiff

contends that defendant disposed of his property on April 16, 2004 in violation of the regulation

granting inmates 30 days in which to arrange for property to be sent home. 

Allegations of retaliation against a prisoner’s First Amendment rights to speech or to

petition the government may support a section 1983 claim. Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 532

(9th Cir. 1985); see also Valandingham v. Bojorquez, 866 F.2d 1135 (9th Cir. 1989); Pratt v.

Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir. 1995). “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 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). The court must “‘afford appropriate deference and flexibility’ to prison

officials in the evaluation of proffered legitimate penological reasons for conduct alleged to be

retaliatory.” Pratt, 65 F.3d at 807 (quoting Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 482 (1995)). The

burden is on plaintiff to demonstrate “that there were no legitimate correctional purposes

motivating the actions he complains of.” Id. at 808. 

Defendant argues that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because he did not

Case 1:05-cv-00211-LJO -DLB Document 49 Filed 07/23/07 Page 6 of 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’s amended complaint and declaration must be based on plaintiff’s personal knowledge, not just 2

mere belief, and must set forth facts admissible in evidence to which plaintiff is competent to testify. Johnson, 134 at

1399-1400; Lew v. Kona Hosp., 754 F.2d 1420, 1423 (9th Cir. 1985) (citation omitted).

7

take any adverse action based on protected conduct. Defendant argues that plaintiff’s property

was at risk after it was issued to him, which predates any of plaintiff’s grievances. In addition,

defendant contends he did not dispose of plaintiff’s property until he believed that all of

plaintiff’s grievances were resolved. UF 17-22. Defendant states that he complied with

departmental policies which were promulgated to address the disposition of property that inmates

are not allowed to possess. After April 6, 2004, plaintiff had been provided with all of the

property he was permitted to possess and his remaining property was disposed of because he was

unable to send his property elsewhere. UF 17-20. 

Plaintiff has offered no evidence that defendant disposed of his property to retaliate

against him, only conjecture. Plaintiff does not dispute that he was issued a property disposition 2

form on January 14, 2004. The form indicated that all unauthorized property would be disposed

of pursuant to Title 15 of the California Department of Regulations and Operational Procedure

806. In his appeal filed January 21, 2004, plaintiff complained that he did not have the funds to

send his unauthorized property home and requested that the property be held. Ex. D. In the

response dated January 28, 2004, defendant advised plaintiff that Operational Procedure 806

required unauthorized property to be mailed home within 30 days. Id. Noting that plaintiff had

received his property on January 21, 2004, defendant advised plaintiff that he had until February

21, 2004 to obtain the funds to send his property home. Id.

Plaintiff contends that defendant came to his cell on January 27, 2004 and told plaintiff to

stop filing complaints against him or he would dispose of plaintiff’s property even if he had the

required funds. Plaintiff’s Opposition, p.3:21-25. 

On January 27, 2005, plaintiff filed a second inmate appeal complaining that he had not

been issued all of his property, including his writings. Ex. E. The appeal was partially granted

in that plaintiff was issued his personal writings on April 6, 2004. Id. 

On March 30, 2006, plaintiff was issued a CDC 128-B which informed plaintiff that he

Case 1:05-cv-00211-LJO -DLB Document 49 Filed 07/23/07 Page 7 of 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

8

had until April 15, 2004 to obtain sufficient funds for shipping his property or the property would

be disposed of. Ex. G. At that time the balance in plaintiff’s trust account was -$62.17 and the

cost of shipping was $60.00. Id. 

Plaintiff’s unauthorized property was disposed of on April 16, 2004. Ex. C. A deposit of

$60.00 was made to plaintiff’s trust account on April 28, 2004. Ex. I. 

Plaintiff fails to set forth evidence raising a triable issue of fact. Plaintiff bears the

burden of proving “that there were no legitimate correctional purposes motivating the actions he

complains of.” Pratt, 65 F.3d at 808. Although plaintiff contends that defendant disposed of his

property in retaliation for filing a grievance, the evidence submitted demonstrates that plaintiff’s

property was disposed of, pursuant to regulation, because he did not have sufficient funds to send

his property home. Indeed, based on the evidence, plaintiff was given more than 30 days to

obtain the necessary funds (January 14, 2004 through April 16, 2004). 

While plaintiff argues that he was not given 30 days from April 6, 2004 to obtain the

required funds, he admits that he initially received his property on January 14, 2004 and was

advised that the remaining property was confiscated and would be disposed of pursuant to

regulation. See Ex. C. That plaintiff was issued additional property on April 6, 2004 does not

restart the time period relating to the confiscated property. Further, plaintiff has not set forth

evidence demonstrating that the disposal of his property was not motivated by any legitimate

correctional purpose. Finally, plaintiff neither alleges nor submits any evidence that his First

Amendment rights were chilled by the allegedly retaliatory property disposal. See Robinson, 408

F.3d at 568-69 (with respect to the chilling element, the proper inquiry is whether the act “would

chill or silence a person of ordinary firmness from future First Amendment activities.”) (internal

quotation marks and citations omitted). 

Plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating the existence of material factual

disputes. Accordingly, defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff’s claim

that defendant disposed of his property in retaliation for filing grievances.

 F. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant’s motion for

Case 1:05-cv-00211-LJO -DLB Document 49 Filed 07/23/07 Page 8 of 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

9

summary judgment, filed January 8, 2007 be GRANTED thus concluding this action in its

entirety. 

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

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). On or

before August 20, 2007, 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 waive the right to

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 21, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00211-LJO -DLB Document 49 Filed 07/23/07 Page 9 of 9