Morris v. Ascencio

Background

Phillip Morris brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against correctional officer Todan Ascencio and Lieutenant Tracy Jackson. Morris alleged that Ascencio filed a false disciplinary report against him in retaliation for lawsuits Morris had filed against prison staff. Morris also alleged that Jackson, who oversaw the disciplinary hearing, violated his procedural due-process rights by refusing to call a requested witness, relying on insufficient evidence, and failing to adequately explain the guilty finding.

During a cell search, Ascencio found a homemade syringe hidden inside a gray ink pen in a locker. Morris was in the cell, although it was not assigned to him, and Ascencio charged Morris and two other prisoners with possessing drug paraphernalia. Morris denied knowing about or possessing the syringe. He alleged that Ascencio threatened to write him up unless Morris made a deal with another lieutenant concerning an earlier disciplinary charge and dropped his lawsuits. Ascencio denied making those statements and said he did not know about Morris’s lawsuits.

At Morris’s disciplinary hearing, he asked to call Grijalva as a witness. Jackson did not call him because Jackson considered the testimony irrelevant and because Grijalva had died before the hearing. Jackson found Morris guilty and imposed 91 days of credit loss, 45 days of privilege loss, and 90 days of drug testing, subject to cancellation if the first results were negative. The disciplinary report and credit loss were later voided and expunged, and the credit loss was restored. A state appellate court dismissed Morris’s related petition as moot.

Mootness

The court rejected defendants’ argument that the case was moot. Morris sought damages for alleged constitutional violations, and expunging the disciplinary record did not eliminate a possible damages claim for a due-process violation. The reversal also did not remedy the alleged retaliation.

Due Process Claim

The court granted summary judgment for Jackson on the due-process claim. A prisoner may have a protected liberty interest in avoiding an unusually significant hardship in prison, and disciplinary proceedings can require procedural protections. Those protections include notice, time to prepare, a written explanation of the evidence and reasons for the decision, an opportunity to call witnesses and present evidence, and assistance in certain circumstances.

The court held that Jackson could not have violated Morris’s rights by refusing to call Grijalva after Grijalva’s death. The court also considered Jackson’s relevance-based reason for not calling Grijalva. Morris said Grijalva would testify that he was inside the cell and was not charged. Because Morris did not dispute that he was in the cell, that the syringe was within his reach, or that Ascencio charged two other prisoners as well, the court concluded that Grijalva’s testimony would have had little effect on Morris’s claims of retaliation or innocence.

The court also held that the written disciplinary decision satisfied the requirement for a written statement of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the action. The decision identified Ascencio’s report, Morris’s statement, witness statements, photographs, and the syringe’s location and accessibility. Finally, the court held that the evidence met the required “some evidence” standard for constructive possession. The court therefore concluded that Morris received due process.

Retaliation Claim

The court granted summary judgment for Ascencio on Morris’s retaliation claim. A prison-retaliation claim requires proof that a state actor took adverse action because of protected conduct, that the action chilled the prisoner’s exercise of constitutional rights, and that the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal, among other elements.

The court concluded that Morris could plausibly establish adverse action, protected conduct, and a possible chilling effect. The record did not adequately establish whether Ascencio knew about Morris’s lawsuits or acted because of them, because Morris and Ascencio gave conflicting accounts and the record lacked evidence about timing and possible pretext. The court did not need to decide that causation issue, however, because Morris could not prove that the disciplinary charge lacked a legitimate correctional purpose.

The court explained that maintaining prison order, institutional security, and drug-free prisons are legitimate correctional goals. Morris did not dispute that he was in the cell where the syringe was found, that the cell was not his own, or that the syringe was within his reach. The court held that charging him and the other prisoners with constructive possession could reasonably advance those goals.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all claims. It directed the clerk to terminate pending motions, enter judgment in favor of defendants, and close the file.