Saddozai v. Atchley

Background

Shikeb Saddozai, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials at Salinas Valley State Prison. The third amended complaint was the operative complaint. The court previously found three claims cognizable against S. Tomlinson, dismissed the other defendants and claims, and later dismissed two of the three claims for failure to state a claim. The remaining claim alleged that Tomlinson violated Saddozai’s First Amendment right to free speech when she removed him from the prison law library on July 21, 2020, after he complained about the handling and copying of his legal documents.

Tomlinson moved for summary judgment, arguing that the undisputed facts showed no First Amendment violation. She said she reviewed Saddozai’s documents under prison regulations, determined that one document could not be copied, and removed him after he became argumentative and disruptive. Saddozai gave a conflicting account, asserting that he remained calm while complaining and that Tomlinson refused to return or copy his documents before calling for his removal.

The court granted Tomlinson’s request for judicial notice of certain proceedings in other courts. It denied Saddozai’s request for judicial notice because it included legal arguments and exhibits that were not adequately tied to the requirements for judicial notice. The court did not consider those arguments and exhibits in deciding summary judgment.

Summary-Judgment Analysis

Summary judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. Courts may not weigh conflicting evidence or decide which witness is more credible at this stage. Instead, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.

The court explained that prisoners retain First Amendment rights that are consistent with their status and legitimate prison objectives. It accepted that the prison regulation governing removal of disruptive inmates from the law library was constitutional on its face under the applicable test. But a facially valid regulation can still be unconstitutional as applied in a particular situation.

The court found a genuine dispute about whether Saddozai was sufficiently disruptive to justify removing him from the library. Tomlinson said he was argumentative and disrespectful; Saddozai said he calmly complained about the refusal to copy his documents. The court concluded that this disputed fact could not be resolved on summary judgment. It also noted that Saddozai’s grievance concerning the refusal to copy and alleged withholding of his documents had been granted on appeal, with the appeals office finding insufficient evidence that the institution had complied with the relevant regulation. The court stated that, if Saddozai’s complaint was not disruptive, removing him under the regulation to silence his speech would be unconstitutional.

Qualified Immunity

Tomlinson alternatively asserted qualified immunity, which can protect a government official from damages when the official’s conduct did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. The court rejected the argument because Tomlinson did not present the facts in the light most favorable to Saddozai. Under Saddozai’s version of events, he made a valid copying request, calmly complained about its denial, and was expelled from the library. On that version, the court held that Tomlinson had not shown entitlement to qualified immunity.

New Claim

Saddozai attempted to raise a new claim concerning the alleged negligent or intentional deprivation of his legal documents. The court declined to allow the amendment because Saddozai had already received three opportunities to file an adequate amended complaint and gave no reason for waiting until this late stage to assert the new claim.

Disposition and Settlement Proceedings

Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied Tomlinson’s motion for summary judgment on the remaining First Amendment free-speech claim. The court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman for settlement proceedings under the Pro Se Prisoner Settlement Program. The case was stayed, apart from matters necessary for settlement, until further order after those proceedings. The order also directed the clerk to send a copy to Judge Illman and stated that the order terminated Docket No. 72.