Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-03055/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-03055-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

WO BL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jason Johnathan Lewis, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Moore, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-3055-PHX-SMM (MEA)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND

ORDER

Plaintiff Jason Johnathan Lewis filed a pro se civil rights action against Corrections

Officer Moore, Sgt. Carroll, Capt. S. Miller, Assistant Deputy Warden L. Schweitzer,

Director of Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC) Dora Schriro, Corrections Officer

S. Demsey, and Major R. Hoover [Doc. #1]. Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion

for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 17], and Defendants Cross Motion for Summary Judgment

[Docs. # 20]. This Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion, grant Defendants’ cross motion, and

dismiss Plaintiff’s action without prejudice.

Procedural Background

Plaintiff is litigating an action against Defendants for violations of his equal protection

and due process rights [Doc. #1]. Plaintiff, an African-American, alleged that his equal

protection rights were violated when Defendants Moore and Carroll improperly charged him

with a disciplinary violation in connection with an accusation that he possessed a weapon

(Id.). Plaintiff argued that his due process rights were violated during the disciplinary

proceedings because: (1) Defendant Miller refused to provide him a copy of the statement

against him, found him guilty based on insufficient evidence, denied him a defense, and

Case 2:04-cv-03055-SMM-MEA Document 26 Filed 08/23/06 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

27

28

- 2 -

failed to provide him with an adequate written disposition; (2) Defendant Schweitzer

improperly denied his appeal; (3) Defendants Dempsey and Hoover improperly processed

his appeal and failed to rectify the situation; and, (4) Defendant Schriro failed to rectify the

situation (Id.). Plaintiff asserted that as a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff was

transferred to a higher security facility with less privileges and not allowed to work (Id.).

Plaintiff seeks monetary relief, expungement of his disciplinary conviction and restoration

of all his rights and privileges (Id.).

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that he was singled out due

to his race and convicted of disciplinary charges absent evidence against him [Doc. #17].

Attached to the motion were Plaintiff’s declaration and copies of the prison disciplinary

proceedings (Id.). Defendants filed a Cross Motion for Summary Judgment and Response,

arguing that Plaintiff’s claims are barred under Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997), and

that his constitutional rights were not violated [Doc. #20]. Defendants attached Plaintiff’s

AIMS report and Defendant Carroll’s affidavit [Doc. #21].

Factual Background

Based on the record, on August 7, 2004, a weapon construed out of epoxy was located

in the common area of one of the dorms [Doc. #21, ex. 3]. An investigation determined that

Plaintiff made and provided the weapon to another African-American inmate (Id.). The

maintenance work crew was interviewed, and on August 11, 2004, Defendant Moore verbally

notified Plaintiff that he was being placed on disciplinary report [Doc. #17, attached

declaration, ex. A, B; Doc. #21, ex. 3]. Later that same day, Defendant Carroll notified

Plaintiff that, based on three different sources naming Plaintiff as the inmate who was

working in maintenance and making weapons, Plaintiff was charged with conspiracy to

commit and prevent the discovery of a violation [Doc. #17, attached declaration, ex. B]. 

As a result of Defendant Moore’s written report and information from a confidential

informant, Plaintiff was found guilty of the disciplinary charge [Doc. #17, attached

declaration, ex. C]. Plaintiff was penalized by the loss of 60 earned release credits, 10 days

disciplinary detention, 30 days of parole class III ineligibility, 30 days loss of privileges, a

Case 2:04-cv-03055-SMM-MEA Document 26 Filed 08/23/06 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

27

28

- 3 -

reprimand, and reclassification (Id., ex. C). Defendant Schweitzer denied Plaintiff’s appeal

(Id., attached declaration, ex. E). Plaintiff subsequently attempted to appeal his charge to

Defendant Schriro, but due to unexplained circumstances his appeal was never properly

processed (Id., attached declaration, exs. F, G, I). Plaintiff then submitted an untimely

appeal, which was denied (Id., exs. H, J).

Summary Judgment Standard

A court must grant summary judgment if the pleadings and supporting documents,

viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, “show that there is 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); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986);

Jesinger v. Nevada Fed. Credit Union, 24 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir. 1994). The materiality

requirement means “[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under

the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Anderson v.

Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Substantive law determines which facts are

material. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. The dispute must also be genuine, meaning “the

evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id.

The court determines whether there is a genuine issue for trial but does not weigh the

evidence or determine the truth of matters asserted. Jesinger, 24 F.3d at 1131. 

A principal purpose of summary judgment is “to isolate and dispose of factually

unsupported claims.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323-24. Summary judgment is appropriate

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; see also Citadel Holding Corp. v. Roven, 26 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.

1994). The moving party need not disprove matters on which the opponent has the burden

of proof at trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. 

Furthermore, the party opposing summary judgment “may not rest upon the mere

allegations or denials of [the party’s] pleading, but . . . must set forth specific facts showing

that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); see also Matsushita Elec. Indus.

Case 2:04-cv-03055-SMM-MEA Document 26 Filed 08/23/06 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

27

28

- 4 -

Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986); Brinson v. Lind Rose Joint

Venture, 53 F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir. 1995). There is no issue for trial unless there is

sufficient evidence favoring the non-moving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. If the

evidence is merely colorable or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be

granted. Id. at 249-50. However, “[t]he evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and

all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Id. at 255 (citing Adickes v. S.H.

Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158-59 (1970)).

Discussion

“[A] state prisoner’s § 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation) – no matter the

relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no matter the target of the prisoner’s suit (state

conduct leading to conviction or internal prison proceedings) – if success in that action would

necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.” Wilkinson v. Dotson,

544 U.S. 74, 81 (2005) (citing Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997); Heck v. Humphrey,

512 U.S. 477 (1994); and Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973)). However, § 1983

claims which do not necessarily spell a prisoner’s speedier release and claims regarding

future relief are not similarly barred. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 82.

As a result of disciplinary proceedings, Plaintiff was penalized with the loss of 60

earned release credits, 10 days disciplinary detention, 30 days of parole class III ineligibility,

30 days loss of privileges, a reprimand, and reclassification [Doc. #17, ex. C]. Plaintiff has

set forth no evidence to demonstrate that the disciplinary action has been overturned either

on direct administrative review or pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

In his Complaint, Plaintiff stated that he is seeking monetary damages and the

restoration of all his rights and privileges [Doc. #1]. However, Plaintiff seeks to overturn his

disciplinary action, which included the loss of earned release credits [Doc. #1]. As a result

of a judgment in favor of Plaintiff, and an overturning of the disciplinary ruling, Plaintiff

would be entitled to the 60 days of earned credit release, which would spell a speedier

release. See Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 82. In sum, because a judgment in favor of Plaintiff in

the instant action would necessarily imply the invalidity of the duration of his confinement,

Case 2:04-cv-03055-SMM-MEA Document 26 Filed 08/23/06 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

27

28

- 5 -

see id. at 81; Heck, 512 U.S. at 487, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment will be denied

and Defendants’ Cross Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted. Because Plaintiff

may successfully have his disciplinary action overturned in the future through the proper

avenue, the dismissal of the instant § 1983 action will be without prejudice.

Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc.

#17] is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Cross Motion for Summary

Judgment [Doc. #20] is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s action is dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment

in favor of the Defendants.

DATED this 22nd day of August, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-03055-SMM-MEA Document 26 Filed 08/23/06 Page 5 of 5