UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON

STEPHEN L. FARRAR,

Plaintiff,

v. 

COLETTE PETERS, Director, O.D.O.C.;

SUPT. J. PREMO, Asst. Supt.; M.

YODER; CAPT. D. LONG; C. COFFEY,

OSP Medical Services; S. SHELTON,

M.D., Medical Director, O.D.O.C.; J.

RUSSELL, BHS Administrator; T.

BYERLY, BHS Manager OSP; B

MILLER, BHS (PMHNP) OSP; C.

GORDON, BHS (QMHP) OSP; C.

FARRELL (QMHP) OSP; LEONARD

WILLIAMSON, Inspector General;

GARRETT LANEY, Deputy Inspector

General; E. BRYANT, Inspector 2; J.

NOFZIGER, OSP; D. PARKER, OSP; K.

ENGLE, C/O OSP; DR. GULICK, SRCI,

Defendants.

Case No. 6:15-cv-0618-KI

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION 

AND ORDER

Page 1 - SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-00618-KI Document 146 Filed 11/09/16 Page 1 of 7
KING, Judge:

Plaintiff Stephen L. Farrar, an Oregon Department of Corrections’ inmate, brings this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. I previously deferred ruling on defendants’

motion for summary judgment as to a portion of Claim Two and I directed defendants to provide

to the Court a copy of a video that plaintiff claimed was exculpatory. 

I have now reviewed the video and I do not require additional briefing to resolve

defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Claim Two.1 For the following reasons, I now

grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment and enter judgment as to all claims.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s remaining claim arises from a May 2014 misconduct report and the subsequent

disciplinary proceeding; plaintiff alleges defendants Kennan Engle (Correctional Officer), Denise

Parker (Correctional Hearings Officer), and Leonard Williamson (Inspector General) violated his

due process rights. I previously dismissed Engle and Williamson. See Op. and Order, Sept. 29,

2016 (ECF No. 143).

The facts relevant to the remaining claim are as follows:

On May 26, 2014, Engle charged plaintiff with Contraband I, False Information to

Employees I, and Distribution I. In the misconduct report, Engle reported that he watched

plaintiff put something small in inmate Britt Brock’s palm. Engle saw plaintiff holding

1To make a complete record, I note the following: the Court received a disc purporting to

contain the entire interaction referenced in Parker’s report. However, the video did not start until

14:21:03, which fell past the time marked in Parker’s report. Court staff contacted defendants’

attorney and obtained a corrected version of the video. Since the Court could independently

confirm that the video it received corresponded with the video entered into evidence at plaintiff’s

disciplinary hearing (as described by Parker in her report), plaintiff’s Objections to Video Docket

(ECF No. 145) are deemed moot.

Page 2 - SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-00618-KI Document 146 Filed 11/09/16 Page 2 of 7
something in his hand. Engle ordered plaintiff to show what was in his hand, at which time

plaintiff showed Engle a small piece of what looked like plastic wrap. Plaintiff threw the plastic

away at Engle’s direction. Engle then approached Britt and ordered him to empty his pockets. 

Britt held on to something in his right hand, tried to put it behind his back, and then put whatever

was in his hand into his mouth. Officers handcuffed Britt and took him to DSU where he

admitted to taking Neurontin. When Engle asked plaintiff if he passed anything to Britt he said

no. Plaintiff then said he passed the piece of plastic to Britt.2 Plaintiff admitted he was

prescribed Neurontin.

Parker postponed the initial disciplinary hearing to allow plaintiff to watch a surveillance

video. At the subsequent June 10, 2014 disciplinary hearing, Parker denied plaintiff’s request to

call Britt as a witness. She found plaintiff in violation of Distribution II, Contraband I, and

Disobedience of an Order I.

3

 She imposed a punishment of 25 days in DSU, 14 days loss of

privileges, and a $35 fine suspended pending no Level 1 or II rule violations.

2

 Plaintiff says he told the investigator he passed paper to Britt. Pl.’s First Aff. ¶ 72.

3

 An inmate commits Distribution II if he “[d]istributes or has distributed to him/her or

manufactures contraband that creates a threat to the safety, security and orderly operation of the

facility[.]” OAR 291-105-0015(4)(g)(A). Contraband I includes possessing any intoxicant. 

OAR 291-105-0015(1)(d). Disobedience of an Order I occurs when an inmate “overtly refuses to

promptly, or in a timely manner, comply with a valid order, which creates a threat to the safety,

security, or orderly operation of the facility (such as when one or more other persons are

present).” OAR 291-105-0015(4)(a). I note Parker also references the charge of False

Information to Employees I, which is what Engle initially charged plaintiff with. See Parker

Decl. Att. 1, at 3. Regardless, the discipline plaintiff received was based on the Distribution II

charge alone.

Page 3 - SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-00618-KI Document 146 Filed 11/09/16 Page 3 of 7
LEGAL STANDARDS

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact

and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The

initial burden is on the moving party to point out the absence of any genuine issue of material

fact. Once the initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the opponent to demonstrate

through the production of probative evidence that there remains an issue of fact to be tried. 

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). On a motion for summary judgment, the

court “must view the evidence on summary judgment in the light most favorable to the

non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that party.” Nicholson v.

Hyannis Air Service, Inc., 580 F.3d 1116, 1122 n.1 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).

DISCUSSION

Due process protections called for by the Supreme Court in this context require that a

decision to discipline a prisoner be supported by “some evidence.” Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283,

1287 (9th

 Cir. 2003) (citing Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454

(1985)). “Evidence must meet minimal standards of reliability.” Toussaint v. McCarthy, 926

F.2d 800, 806 (9th Cir. 1990). A court does not “reweigh the evidence; rather, ‘the relevant

question is whether there is any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion.’” 

Bruce, 351 F.3d at 1287 (quoting Hill, 472 U.S. at 455-56). The Constitution does not mandate

that the evidence logically preclude any conclusion other than the one reached by the hearings

officer. Hill, 472 U.S. at 457.

Plaintiff takes issue with Parker’s review of the video and asserts there was insufficient

evidence to support her decision. Compl. 50, ¶¶ (a), (d). Plaintiff summarizes the surveillance

Page 4 - SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-00618-KI Document 146 Filed 11/09/16 Page 4 of 7
video, which he contends shows he passed a white, folded piece of paper to Britt, who placed it

in his front left pocket. Plaintiff then showed Engle a piece of plastic oatmeal bag with a few

oats in it. At Engle’s direction, plaintiff threw the bag out and left for work. The video then

shows Engle ordered Brock to empty his pockets. Brock pulled the contents out of his left

pocket with his left hand and placed them on the counter. The video then depicts Brock pulling

the contents out of his right pocket and quickly placing something into his mouth using his right

hand. Pl.’s First Aff. ¶¶ 64-70. 

Based on plaintiff’s description of the video, and the fact that he contends the video

clearly shows he passed Britt a piece of white paper, which went into Britt’s left pocket, when

Britt took the Neurontin out of his right pocket, I felt it necessary to watch the video in order to

determine whether the video constitutes exculpatory evidence sufficient to undermine Parker’s

decision. See Williams v. Thomas, 492 F. App’x 732, 734 (9th Cir. 2012) (unpublished) (district

and appellate court reviewed video evidence in order to help determine whether it constituted

exculpatory evidence). Accordingly, I deferred decision on defendants’ summary judgment as to

this portion of plaintiff’s second claim.

I have now reviewed the video. The video does indeed reflect that plaintiff passed Britt a

folded piece of paper. Britt took the folded paper from plaintiff’s hand but did not open it or read

it. Instead, he put it in the left front pocket of his pants and kept his left hand in his pocket while

he and plaintiff continued their conversation. Britt then stroked his chin with his left hand,

hitched his pants with his left hand, then turned back to the counter. While continuing to talk to

plaintiff, Britt glanced toward the security camera then clasped his hands together and stretched

them over his head. At 14:20:29, Britt turned and leaned his back against the counter while

Page 5 - SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-00618-KI Document 146 Filed 11/09/16 Page 5 of 7
plaintiff faced toward the counter. Britt’s right shoulder then nearly touched plaintiff’s right

shoulder. At 14:20:30, Britt looked down at plaintiff’s right side and continued looking down

through 14:20:32 while both of their right arms moved. The security footage does not capture

what they did with their hands. By 14:20:33 both plaintiff and Britt shifted away from each other

and by 14:20:36 plaintiff had begun walking away from Britt.

The video is not conclusive evidence in plaintiff’s favor. Engle reported that he saw

plaintiff put something small in Britt’s palm. The video reflects that plaintiff and Britt were

close enough for plaintiff to pass something to Britt’s right hand, and showed their arms moving,

from 14:20:30 to 14:20:32. While I agree with plaintiff that Engle overstated the evidence when

he said the video shows plaintiff “clearly giving Inmate Britt something,” the interaction in the

context of the entire video is sufficient to corroborate Engle’s statement that he observed plaintiff

put something small in Britt’s hand. When Engle told Britt to empty his pockets, Britt pulled

something from his right pocket and put it in his mouth with his right hand. In short, Engle’s

report and the video provide “some evidence” to support Parker’s conclusion that plaintiff

committed the offenses of which he was charged. 

Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on this claim.

///

///

///

Page 6 - SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-00618-KI Document 146 Filed 11/09/16 Page 6 of 7
 CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, defendants’ motions for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 59)

as to claim two and as to defendant Parker is now granted. Judgment will be entered dismissing

this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 9th

 day of November, 2016. 

 /s/ Garr M. King 

Garr M. King

United States District Judge

Page 7 - SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-00618-KI Document 146 Filed 11/09/16 Page 7 of 7