WILLIAMS v. Hillner; et al., Defendants. (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-03-16No. No. 19-35281

Summary · law.co

Holding. The judgment is reversed and remanded because genuine disputes of material fact exist as to whether the defendant violated the plaintiff's First Amendment rights to petition and against retaliation, making summary judgment and qualified immunity inappropriate at this stage.

Kent Glen Williams, an Idaho state prisoner held before trial, sued under federal civil rights law claiming that a defendant named Fox violated his First Amendment rights by rejecting two grievances he filed and threatening disciplinary action in response. The district court granted summary judgment in Fox's favor. On appeal, Williams argued the court erred in doing so.

The appellate court found that when all factual disputes are resolved in Williams's favor and all reasonable inferences drawn in his favor, a genuine question of fact remains about whether Fox actually violated Williams's First Amendment protections. Specifically, there is a material factual dispute regarding whether Fox's rejection of the grievances and warning of possible discipline amounted to retaliation for protected activity. Because these factual questions exist, the court also concluded the district court improperly applied qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage.

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

Key issues

Whether rejection of prisoner grievances and threat of discipline constitutes First Amendment retaliation
Whether disrespectful language in a grievance receives First Amendment protection
Proper application of qualified immunity when material factual disputes remain

Procedural posture

A pro se appeal by an Idaho state pretrial detainee from district court summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 First Amendment retaliation action.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Idaho state prisoner Kent Glen Williams appeals pro se from the district courts summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First Amendment violations while he was a pretrial detainee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Guatay Christian Fellowship v. Cnty. of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011) (cross-motions for summary judgment); Long v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 511 F.3d 901, 905 (9th Cir. 2007) (qualified immunity). We reverse and remand.

The district court erred in granting summary judgment for defendant Fox. Resolving all factual disputes and drawing all reasonable inferences in Williamss favor, there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Fox violated Williamss First Amendment rights to petition and against retaliation when Fox rejected Williamss two grievances and warned of possible disciplinary action. See Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1270-71 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining that “disrespectful language in a prisoners grievance is itself protected activity under the First Amendment” and concluding that a threat of punitive action beyond refusing to accept a grievance can constitute an adverse retaliatory action). Accordingly, it was also error to grant summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity as these genuine factual disputes make it unclear whether qualified immunity should apply at this stage of the case. See Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735, 741, 131 S.Ct. 2074, 179 L.Ed.2d 1149 (2011).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

FOOTNOTES

. We do not consider those matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).