Tooker v. Mak

Background

Charles W. Tooker, an inmate at Correctional Training Facility, filed a self-represented complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He challenged a prison disciplinary proceeding arising from a July 21, 2019 fight with another inmate. Tooker said he had been attacked and fought back in self-defense. Correctional Officer Villasenor reported seeing both inmates punch each other and ordered them to stop.

Tooker was later issued a Rules Violation Report for fighting. At the disciplinary hearing, chaired by defendant T Mak, Tooker pleaded not guilty and said he had acted in self-defense. He requested inmate witnesses but did not provide their names when asked. Mak found him guilty based on the report, Villasenor’s account, medical reports, photographs, and Tooker’s testimony. The punishment included loss of 90 days of credit and placement in Privilege Group C for 30 days. The 90 days of credit were restored after Tooker remained discipline-free.

Tooker’s complaint challenged the fairness of the disciplinary process and the handling of his grievances. He identified grievances concerning the disciplinary report and alleged withheld video evidence. The later grievance did not identify defendants Deverick and Lee, and it had not received a final decision when the complaint was filed.

Pending motions

The defendants moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the record shows that no material factual dispute requires a trial and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tooker did not file an opposition despite receiving extensions of time. Tooker also renewed his request for appointed counsel. The defendants moved for sanctions based on Tooker’s alleged failure to comply with discovery orders.

Court’s reasoning

The court held that Tooker had not alleged the loss of a protected liberty interest. Under the applicable prison-discipline standard, a deprivation generally must impose an unusually severe hardship compared with ordinary prison life or inevitably affect the sentence’s duration. The restored credit loss did not affect the sentence’s duration, and the 30-day C-status restrictions did not amount to the required severe hardship. The court also said that possible effects of the disciplinary report on matters such as parole, employment, housing, or other areas did not establish a due process violation on this record.

In the alternative, the court held that Tooker received all constitutionally required procedures. He received written notice, time to prepare, and a written decision. The court found no constitutional requirement that prison officials investigate and identify witnesses for him when he did not identify the inmate witnesses himself. The court also found evidence supporting the fighting charge and noted that the prison regulation did not distinguish between starting a fight and defending oneself in a fight.

The court separately held that Tooker failed to state a claim against Deverick and Lee because their involvement consisted of reviewing and denying his grievance. It also held that he failed to exhaust his claims against them as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act because his later grievance did not mention them or the earlier grievance and had not been finally resolved. The court declined to address the defendants’ remaining arguments, including qualified immunity and other grounds.

Appointment of counsel

The court denied Tooker’s request for appointed counsel because he had not shown the exceptional circumstances required for counsel in a civil case. The court found that he had articulated his claims, that the legal issues were not complex, and that his discovery conduct made it difficult to assess his likelihood of success.

Disposition

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied Tooker’s motion for appointment of counsel, granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and denied the defendants’ sanctions motion as moot. The clerk was directed to enter judgment for the defendants against Tooker, terminate the pending motions, and close the case.