Frost v. Ducart

Background

Shawn Kevin Frost, a state prisoner who proceeded without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials and employees of Pelican Bay State Prison and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. He alleged that they violated the First Amendment by retaliating against him for filing inmate grievances. Frost sought declaratory relief and money damages.

The court had previously dismissed Frost’s supervisory-liability claim against Warden Clark E. Ducart without prejudice. It had found cognizable Frost’s remaining First Amendment retaliation claims against other defendants. Those claims concerned three alleged forms of retaliation: moving Frost to cell A2-105 after he filed grievance PBSP-16-01431; refusing to process his July 17, 2016 Form 22 request directly to the warden; and denying or reviewing related grievances without taking corrective action.

Legal standard

The court applied the summary-judgment standard. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. After the moving party identifies an absence of supporting evidence, the opposing party must identify specific admissible evidence showing a genuine factual dispute.

For a prisoner’s First Amendment retaliation claim, the prisoner must show that a state actor took an adverse action because of protected conduct, that the action chilled the prisoner’s exercise of First Amendment rights, and that the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.

Cell-move claim

Frost claimed that Defendants J. Schrag, D. Wilcox, and T. S. Buchanan moved him to cell A2-105 as punishment for filing grievance PBSP-16-01431. He alleged that the cell lacked a seat or stool, a desk or table, electrical power for his approved appliances, and a working sink, and that he remained there for approximately five months.

The court found that the alleged move could qualify as an adverse action and that the timing of the move after Frost’s grievance was enough to support the claim at the earlier stage of the case. At summary judgment, however, the court found that Frost had not produced specific evidence connecting the move to his grievance. The court emphasized that an action occurring after protected conduct does not, by itself, prove that the action occurred because of that conduct. Frost also had not shown that Schrag, Wilcox, or Buchanan knew about the grievance before the move.

The court further found that the evidence showed legitimate correctional reasons for the move. Pelican Bay was conducting bed compactions because of increased inmate transfers and the need to use available bed space. Frost’s objection to being housed with a newly assigned cellmate led staff to identify another housing arrangement, resulting in the bed swap that placed Frost in A2-105. The court concluded that Frost had not shown that the move failed to advance legitimate correctional goals. It therefore granted summary judgment to Schrag, Wilcox, and Buchanan on this claim.

Form 22 claim

Frost claimed that Correctional Officer T. Toussaint retaliated against him by refusing to send his July 17, 2016 Form 22 request directly to the warden. Toussaint told Frost that Form 22 requests were processed through the ordinary process and might be answered before reaching the warden. When Frost tried to submit the request as confidential legal mail, Toussaint returned it and told Frost that he could write a letter to the warden as confidential legal mail or submit the Form 22 through the standard process.

The court held that, even assuming Frost could show retaliation, he had not shown that Toussaint’s actions failed to advance a legitimate correctional goal. The court found that directing Frost to use the ordinary Form 22 procedure was consistent with the stated purpose of that process: resolving inmate requests efficiently. The court therefore granted summary judgment to the defendants on this claim.

Grievance-review claims

Frost claimed that Defendants C. Olsen, D. W. Bradbury, D. Higgerson, M. Hodges, and M. Voong knew about the alleged retaliation but failed to correct it when they reviewed or denied his grievances. The evidence showed that these defendants’ involvement was primarily administrative. They reviewed investigative findings, recommendations, regulations, and other grievance materials; some approved responses on behalf of other officials, and Voong designated other staff to act on his behalf.

The court found no genuine dispute of material fact concerning these defendants’ individual actions. Because Frost had not produced sufficient evidence that the underlying cell move or Form 22 incident was retaliatory, he also had not produced sufficient evidence that the officials violated the First Amendment by reviewing or denying related grievances. The court granted summary judgment on these claims as well.

Disposition

The court denied the defendants’ objections to Frost’s evidence as moot. It granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to all claims, ordered that judgment be entered in their favor, terminated all pending motions as moot, and closed the file.