Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01938/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01938-10/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

Plaintiff’s claims against other defendants named in this action were dismissed on May 1

31, 2005. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATHAN JEROME ELLIS

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-1938 LLK CMK P

vs.

MIKE KNOWLES, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, without counsel, prosecuting this civil rights action

against defendant C.D. Brown. This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302(b)(21) for findings and recommendations on defendant

Brown’s motion for summary judgment. 

I. Standard of Review

On a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56(c), the court must 

accept the evidence of the non-moving party as true and draw all reasonable inferences of fact in

favor of the non-moving party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating that there exists no genuine issue as to any

Case 2:03-cv-01938-LKK -CMK Document 77 Filed 06/05/06 Page 1 of 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

2

material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Celotex

Corp v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P 56(c)). If the moving party

meets its burden, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party to establish that a genuine issue

as to any material fact does actually exist. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. V. Zenith Radio

Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). The party opposing summary judgment may not rest on

conclusory allegations, but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of

material fact. See Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 422 (9th Cir. 1978)(involving a pro se

litigant); see also Anderson, 477 U.S. at 586 n. 11. When the record taken as a whole could not

lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue of material

fact for trial. See Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587. 

On March 24, 2004, the court advised plaintiff of the requirements for opposing a

motion pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Rand v. Rowland, 154

F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc); Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988).

II. Background

Plaintiff is incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison (MCSP). Prison regulations

permit inmates to have six cubic feet of property in their cells; property includes legal materials. 

On February 28, 2001, Officer O’Connor came to plaintiff’s cell and moved plaintiff’s legal

material to a storage facility. None of plaintiff’s other property was taken. When plaintiff

protested, Officer O’Connor replied that “the Captain said I can do whatever I want with you.” 

Defendant Brown is the Captain of Facility B at MCSP, where plaintiff was housed in 2001.

Plaintiff was allowed to organize his confiscated legal material into boxes at Release and

Receiving (R and R), which is where inmate legal material was stored. Plaintiff states that he

requested access to his legal materials stored in R and R three times and that his request was

ignored each time. 

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Brown ordered plaintiff’s legal material

confiscated to retaliate against plaintiff for bringing and assisting in civil rights litigation.

Case 2:03-cv-01938-LKK -CMK Document 77 Filed 06/05/06 Page 2 of 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

3

III. Discussion

Defendant Brown argues that he is entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff

fails to establish the essential elements of a retaliation claim. In the alternative, defendant Brown

argues that he is protected from liability by qualified immunity. 

Retaliation Claim

Within the prison context, a viable claim of 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 plaintiff’s First Amendment

rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v.

Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 568 (9th Cir. 2005). The court must afford appropriate deference to

prison officials in the evaluation of the proffered legitimate correctional reasons for conduct

alleged to be retaliatory. See Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir. 1995). The burden

rests on plaintiff to demonstrate that there were no legitimate correctional purposes motivating the

actions of which he complains. See id. at 808.

Bringing and assisting in civil rights litigation is a constitutionally protected

activity. See Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 461 (9th Cir. 1995). Defendant argues that

plaintiff cannot demonstrate that defendant had a retaliatory intent when he ordered the removal

of plaintiff’s legal papers; specifically pointing out that plaintiff had never filed a lawsuit or

grievance against defendant Brown. Regardless of whether plaintiff had filed any action against

defendant Brown, plaintiff has alleged that other correctional officers were aware of plaintiff’s

filing and assisting with civil rights litigation. Viewed in a light most favorable to plaintiff, this

supports the inference that defendant was aware of plaintiff’s activities and, therefore could have

had a retaliatory motive in ordering the removal of plaintiff’s legal materials. See e.g. Hines v.

Gomez, 108 f.3d 265, 268-69 (9th Cir. 1997). 

///

///

Case 2:03-cv-01938-LKK -CMK Document 77 Filed 06/05/06 Page 3 of 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

4

Defendant argues that the removal of plaintiff’s legal papers did not have a chilling

effect on plaintiff’s First Amendment rights because plaintiff was able to file a third amended

complaint, had access to the law library, and was able to file a new lawsuit on February 15, 2001. 

This argument, however, was rejected by the Ninth Circuit in Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559,

568 (9th Cir. 2005)( a prison litigant is not required to “demonstrate a total chilling of his First

Amendment rights in order to perfect a retaliation claim. Speech can be chilled even when not

completely silenced.” )

The issue, therefore, becomes whether the removal of plaintiff’s legal papers

advanced a legitimate correctional goal. Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that there were no

legitimate correctional purposes motivating the actions of which he complains. See Pratt, 65 F.3d

at 808. MCSP regulations state that inmates in the general population shall not keep more than

six cubic feet of property in their cells. (Def.’s Mot. Summ. J., Ex. A, ¶ 1; Pl.’s Objection to

Def.’s Mot. Summ. J., Ex. C.) This regulation is to ensure that sanitary conditions, prevent fire

hazards and allow correctional staff to observe potential weapons or contraband. (Def.’s Mot.

Summ. J., Ex. A, ¶ 2.) 

In his deposition, plaintiff stated that, on February 8, 2001, he was allowed six

cubic feet of property in his cell, but had about eight cubic feet. (Def.’s Mot. Summ. J., Ex. F,

42:10-14, 43-44.) Plaintiff stated that the majority of his personal property was legal materials;

other property that he had was clothing, a television, a radio and a fan. (Id. at 42:23-25, 43:1-12.)

Therefore, defendant’s proffered basis for removing plaintiff’s legal papers—that his personal

property exceeded the six cubic feet allowed by regulation, is undisputed. 

Plaintiff offers no evidence to support his claim that removal of his legal papers

was for any other reason than that offered by defendant. Plaintiff’s argument that there was no

legitimate correctional purpose motivating the removal of his legal papers because only legal

materials were targeted to “frustrate plaintiff’s legal activities” is insufficient. (Pl.’s Statement of

Genuine Issues in Opp’n to Mot. For Summ. J., 10:17-21.) Plaintiff stated in his deposition that

Case 2:03-cv-01938-LKK -CMK Document 77 Filed 06/05/06 Page 4 of 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

5

the majority of his personal property consisted of legal materials. (Def.’s Mot. Summ. J., Ex. F,

42:16-24.) In light of plaintiff’s statements in his deposition, the court cannot conclude that

plaintiff has met his burden of showing that defendant’s action did not reasonably advance a

legitimate correctional goal. See Pratt, 65 F.3d at 808. The court therefore finds that plaintiff has

not submitted evidence raising a triable issue of fact with respect to his retaliation claim regarding

the removal of his legal property from his cell to storage in R and R. Therefore, defendant Brown

is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff’s retaliation claim. 

Plaintiff states in his Objection to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment that

he never claimed that defendant Brown took adverse action against him on April 3, 2001 and that

he never claimed that defendant Brown was responsible for plaintiff’s missing box of legal

property. (Pl.’s Objection to Def.’s Mot. Summ. J., 19:24-26, 20:3-6.) Therefore, the court does

not address these two issues. 

As defendant is entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s retaliation claim, the

court does not address defendant’s qualified immunity argument. 

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

/// 

Case 2:03-cv-01938-LKK -CMK Document 77 Filed 06/05/06 Page 5 of 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

6

IV. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (doc. 66-1) be granted; and

2. Plaintiff’s action be dismissed with prejudice. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

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

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: June 2, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-01938-LKK -CMK Document 77 Filed 06/05/06 Page 6 of 6