MATTHEWS v. OR (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-06-22No. No. 19-35949

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of EOCI officials, rejecting all of Matthews' constitutional claims as unsupported by evidence or as failing to state viable legal theories.

Daniel Matthews, an Oregon prisoner, challenged various prison policies and actions through a federal civil rights lawsuit against Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution officials. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the prison officials, and Matthews appealed. The appellate court examined each of Matthews' claims and found them lacking in evidence or legal merit.

Matthews asserted that prison officials violated his right to access the courts by enforcing library rules and charging fees for copying and printing. He also claimed retaliation under the First Amendment, arguing that library enforcement actions deterred his exercise of constitutional rights. Additionally, he challenged the constitutionality of prison rules prohibiting disobedience and disrespect as applied to his conduct, and raised Fourth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, and due process claims related to document inspection and disciplinary procedures. The court determined that Matthews failed to produce sufficient evidence of actual injury regarding court access, failed to demonstrate that library enforcement would chill ordinary prisoners' rights, and did not establish that prison rules were unconstitutional as applied to him given his documented refusal to follow orders and argumentative behavior.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Prison access to courts and law library procedures
First Amendment retaliation claims in correctional facilities
Constitutionality of prison disciplinary rules as applied to inmate conduct
Fourth and Sixth Amendment protections in prison disciplinary proceedings
Procedural due process rights in prison disciplinary hearings

Procedural posture

The case was appealed from a district court grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant prison officials on Matthews' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights claims.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Daniel Matthews, an Oregon prisoner, appeals the district courts summary judgment in favor of the Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution (“EOCI”) officials against whom he filed his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. We affirm.

As to his access to the courts claim, Matthews produced no evidence that he suffered an actual injury. See Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348–49, 116 S. Ct. 2174, 2178–79, 135 L. Ed. 2d 606 (1996). Matthews did not produce evidence that he was unable to pursue any pending or future legal action for fear that he would be improperly charged for photocopies or with violating library rules.

As to his retaliation claim, Matthews did not produce evidence that any actions by EOCIs library coordinator would chill an ordinary persons exercise of First Amendment rights, or that her conduct failed to advance legitimate penological purposes. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567–69 (9th Cir. 2005). Enforcing library rules, charging Matthews for printing and copying, and slightly delaying his access to the library do not constitute adverse actions that would deter ordinary persons from exercising their First Amendment rights. See id. EOCI also had a legitimate penological interest in managing its law library. See Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 521 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335 (9th Cir. 1990).

As to his claim that the prison rules about disobedience and disrespect were unconstitutional as applied to him, Matthews’ argument fails. Prison regulations that impinge on a prisoners constitutional rights are valid if they are reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89, 107 S. Ct. 2254, 2261, 96 L. Ed. 2d 64 (1987). The record shows that Matthews refused to comply with multiple orders to delete an unauthorized document and to wait outside the law library. It also shows that Matthews violated the rule about disrespect because he was argumentative with EOCI officials in the presence of several other inmates. Matthews produced no competent evidence to the contrary. As a result, there is no genuine dispute that the disobedience and disrespect rules were constitutional as applied to his conduct. Cf. Bahrampour v. Lampert, 356 F.3d 969, 975–76 (9th Cir. 2004).

As to his Fourth and Sixth Amendment claims, Matthews’ arguments fall short. The Fourth Amendment did not prohibit the library coordinators scrutiny of the documents that Matthews wished to print or copy so that she could ensure that those documents conformed to library rules. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526–28, 528 n.8, 104 S. Ct. 3194, 3200–01, 3201 n.8, 82 L. Ed. 2d 393 (1984); Taylor v. Knapp, 871 F.2d 803, 806 (9th Cir. 1989); cf. Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d 517, 521–23 (9th Cir. 1996). And the Sixth Amendment does not apply in this context. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 576, 94 S. Ct. 2963, 2984, 41 L. Ed. 2d 935 (1974). “Prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, and the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such proceedings does not apply.” Id. at 556, 94 S. Ct. at 2975.

As to his procedural due process claims, Matthews fares no better. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483–84, 115 S. Ct. 2293, 2300, 132 L. Ed. 2d 418 (1995). Neither the Due Process Clause itself, nor state law, created protected liberty interests in prison employment, education, specific housing, or grievance procedures. See id. at 484, 486, 115 S. Ct. at 2300–01; Walker v. Gomez, 370 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004); Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Hernandez v. Johnston, 833 F.2d 1316, 1318 (9th Cir. 1987); cf. Baumann v. Ariz. Dept of Corr., 754 F.2d 841, 846 (9th Cir. 1985). And sufficient evidence supported the outcome of his disciplinary hearing. See Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455, 105 S. Ct. 2768, 2774, 86 L. Ed. 2d 356 (1985). Moreover, Oregon provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy for Matthews’ property loss claims. See Hudson, 468 U.S. at 534–35, 104 S. Ct. at 3204–05; Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1345 (9th Cir. 1981).

Finally, it was not an abuse of discretion to deny as moot Matthews’ motion to compel more discovery. See C.R. v. Eugene Sch. Dist. 4J, 835 F.3d 1142, 1154 n.7 (9th Cir. 2016); Qualls ex rel. Qualls v. Blue Cross of Cal., Inc., 22 F.3d 839, 844 (9th Cir. 1994). The added discovery “would not have shed light on any of the issues upon which the summary judgment decision was based.” Qualls, 22 F.3d at 844.

With regard to Matthews’ other claims, we do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the district court or not argued on appeal. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

. See Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251–52, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2512, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986).