N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
DANIEL J. M ATTHEW S,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. DEB R A HASC ALL, La

w Libra ry Se c re ta ry , EOC I; R

AM EY, Se rge ant a

t EOC I; R ILEY, C orre c tiona l Offic e r a t EOC I; H. NEVIL, He a

rings Offic e r a t EOC I; J. TAYLOR , Supe rinte nde nt Ea ste rn Ore gon C orre c tiona l Institution; J. PEC K, Assista

nt Supe rinte nde nt a

t EOC I; NINA SOB OTTA, Grie va n c e C oordina

t or at EOC I; C OLETTE PETER S, Dire c tor of ODOC ; ELIZAB ETH C R AIG, Adm inistra

tor of ODOC ; KIM B R OC KAM P, De puty

Dire c tor of ODOC ; M ITC H M ORR OW , De puty Dire c tor of ODOC ; B IR

DIE JANET W ORLEY, R u le s C oordina tor, ODOC ; B R IAN B ELLEQUE, De puty

Dire c tor of ODOC ; ADR IAN O’ C ONNOR , Inte rna l Audit Adm in, ODOC ,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s, LEM ENS, Assista

nt Supe rinte nde nt a

t No. 19-35949 D.C . No. 2:17-c v-00785-SB
M EM O R ANDUM * 

# FIL ED

JUN 22 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.EOC I, De fe nda n t-Appe l le e , and C ITY OF PENDLETON, C OUNTY OF UM A TILLA, OR , Individua lly and in the ir offic ia l c a pa c itie s , De fe nda n t. Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon Karin J. Im

m e rgut, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

June 21, 2021 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : FER

NANDEZ, SILVER

M AN, a nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Danie l M atthe w s, a

n Ore gon prisone r, a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of the Ea s te rn Ore gon C orre c tiona l Institution (“ EOC I” ) offic ia ls a ga inst whom he file d his 42 U.S.C
. § 1983 c la im s. W e a ffirm
. 1

* * T he pa ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c i sion without ora l argum e nt. S

e e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2). 1 Se e Brodhe i m v . C

ry , 584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th C ir. 2009); se e also Ande rson v . Libe rty

Lobby , Inc
. , 477 U.S. 242, 251–52, 106 S. C t. 2505, 2512, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). 1 9
- 3 5 9 4 9 2As to his a c c e ss to thec ourts c la im , M atthe ws produc e d no e vide nc e tha t he suffe re d a n a c tua l injury
. Se e Dille

y v . Gunn , 64 F.3d 1365, 1368 n.2 (9th C ir. 1995); s e e also Le w is v . C a se y , 518 U.S. 343, 348–49, 116 S. C t. 2174, 2178–79, 135 L. Ed. 2d 606 (1996). M atthe ws did not produc e e v ide nc e tha t he wa s una

ble to pursue any

pe nding or futurele ga l a c tion for fe ar that he would be im prope rly
c ha rge d for photoc opie s or with viola ting libra ry rule s. As to his re ta lia

tion c la im , M atthe ws did not produc e e vide nc e tha t a ny
a c tions by

EOC I’ s libra

ry c o ordina tor would c h ill a

n ordina ry pe rson’ s e x e rc ise of First Am e ndm e nt rights, or tha t he r c onduc t fa i le d to a dva n c e le g itim ate pe nologic a l purpose s. Se e Rhode s v . Robinson , 408 F.3d 559, 567–69 (9th C ir. 2005). Enforc ing libra

ry rule s, c ha

rging M atthe ws for printing a n d c opy ing, a

nd slightly de l ay ing his a c c e ss to thelibra ry do not c onstitute

a dve rse a c tions tha

t would de te r ordina

ry pe rsons from

e xe rc ising the ir First Am e ndm e n t rights. Se e id. EOC I a lso ha d a

le g i tim ate pe nologic a l inte re st in m ana ging its la w libra ry . Se e J ohnson v . Moore , 948 F.2d 517, 521 (9th C ir. 1991); W ood v . House w right , 900 F.2d 1332, 1335 (9th C ir. 1990). As to his c la im

tha t the prison rule s a

bout disobe die nc e and disre spe c t we re
unc onstitutiona

l a s a pplie d to him , M atthe ws’ argum e nt fa i ls. Prison re gula tions that im pinge on a

prisone r’ s c onstitutiona

l rights a re va l id if the y are re a sona bly

1 9
- 3 5 9 4 9 3re late d to le gitim ate pe nologic a l inte re sts. Turne r v . Safle y , 482 U.S. 78, 89, 107 S. C t. 2254, 2261, 96 L. Ed. 2d 64 (1987). The re c o rd shows tha

t M atthe ws
re fuse d to c om

ply with m ultipleorde rs to de le te an una uthoriz e d doc um e nt a

nd to
wa it outside

the la w libra ry . It a lso shows tha

t M atthe ws viola

te d the rule a

bout disre spe c t be c a

use he wa s a

rgum e ntative with EOC I offic ia ls in thepre se nc e of
se ve ra l othe r inm ate s. M atthe ws produc e d no c om pe te nt e vide n c e to the c ontra ry . As a re sult, the re is no ge nuine dispute that the disobe die nc e and disre spe c t rule s
we re c onstitutiona

l a s a pplie d to his c onduc t. C

f. Bahrampour v. Lampe rt , 356 F.3d 969, 975–76 (9th C ir. 2004). As to his Fourth a

nd Sixth Am e ndm e n t

c la im s, M atthe ws’ argum e nts fa ll short. The Fourth Am e ndm e nt did not prohibit the libra ry c oordina t or’ s sc rutiny of the doc um e nts tha

t M atthe ws wishe d to print or c opy so tha t she c ould e nsure that those doc um e n ts c onform e d to libra ry rule s. Se e Hudson v . Palme r , 468 U.S. 517, 526–28, 528 n.8, 104 S. C t. 3194, 3200–01, 3201 n.8, 82 L. Ed. 2d 393 (1984); Tay lor v . K

napp , 871 F.2d 803, 806 (9th C i r. 1989); c f. Mitc he l l v . Dupnik

, 75 F.3d 517, 521–23 (9th C ir. 1996). And the Sixth Am e ndm e nt doe s not a pply in this c onte xt. W

olff v . Mc Donne ll , 418 U.S. 539, 576, 94 S. Ct . 2963, 2984, 41 L. Ed. 2d 935 (1974). “Prison disc iplina ry proc e e dings a

re not pa rt of a c rim ina l

1 9
- 3 5 9 4 9 4prose c ution, a nd the full pa

noply of rights duea

de fe nda nt in suc h proc e e dings doe s not a pply .” Id. at 556, 94 S. C t. at 2975. As to his proc e dura l due proc e s s c la im s , M atthe ws fa re s no be tte r. Se e Sandin v . C

onne r , 515 U.S. 472, 483–84, 115 S. C t. 2293, 2300, 132 L. Ed. 2d 418 (1995). Ne ithe r the Due Proc e ss C la use itse lf, nor sta

te la w, c re ate d

prote c t e d libe rty inte re sts in prison em

ploy m e n t, e duc ation, spe c ific housing, or grieva nc e proc e d ure s. Se e id. at 4 8 4, 486, 115 S. C t. at 2300–01; W alk e r v . Gome

z , 370 F.3d 969, 973 (9th C ir. 2004); R amire z v . Galaza , 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th C ir. 2003); He rnande z v . J ohnston , 833 F.2d 1316, 1318 (9th C ir. 1987); c f. Baumann v . Ariz. De p’t of C orr. , 754 F.2d 841, 846 (9th C ir. 1985). And suffic ie nt e vide nc e supporte d the outc om e of his disc iplina ry he a ring. Se e Supe rinte nde n t, Mass. C orr. Inst. v . Hill , 472 U.S. 445, 455, 105 S. Ct. 2768, 2774, 86 L. Ed. 2d 356 (1985). M ore ove r, Ore gon provide s an a de quate post-de priva

tion re m e dy

for M atthe ws’ prope rty loss c la im s. Se e Hudson , 468 U.S. a t 534–35, 104 S. C t. at 3204–05; Frank

lin v

. Ore gon , 662 F.2d 1337, 1345 (9th C ir. 1981). Fina lly , it wa s not a

n a b use of disc re tion to de ny a s m o ot M atthe ws’ m otion to c o m pe l m ore disc ove ry . Se e C .R. v . Euge neSc h. Dist. 4J , 835 F.3d 1142, 1154 n.7 (9th C ir. 2016); Qualls e x re l. Qualls v . Blue C

ross of C al., Inc

. , 22 F.3d 839, 844 (9th C i r. 1994). The a dde d disc ove ry “ would not ha

v e she d light on a

ny of the

1 9
- 3 5 9 4 9 5issue s upon whic h the sum m ary judgm e nt de c i sion wa s ba s e d.” Qualls , 22 F.3d a t 844. W ith re ga

rd to M atthe ws’ othe r c la i m s, we do not c onside r m atte rs not spe c ific a lly

and distinc tly

ra ise d a nd a rgue d in the distric t c ourt or not a rgue d on
a ppe a l. Se e Smith v . Marsh , 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th C ir. 1999). AFFIRM E D.

1 9
- 3 5 9 4 9 6