Hawthorne v. Kernan

Background

Carlos A. Hawthorne, an incarcerated person who was previously housed at San Quentin State Prison, represented himself in this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The operative complaint asserted First Amendment retaliation, access-to-the-courts, religious free-exercise, and speech-related claims based on the confiscation of his draft civil-rights complaint, legal papers, religious books and items, books, magazines, and other property.

The remaining claims were: (1) Yanez allegedly confiscated Hawthorne’s draft complaint and reported it to his mental-health team in retaliation for protected conduct; (2) Swensen and Thomas allegedly directed staff to confiscate property, including legal documents and the draft complaint, in retaliation; (3) Swensen allegedly confiscated religious books and items; and (4) Swensen allegedly confiscated books and magazines. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence shows that no reasonable jury could find for the opposing party.

Ruling on Swensen

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires incarcerated people to properly complete available prison grievance procedures before bringing claims about prison conditions. The court found that none of Hawthorne’s grievances named Swensen or challenged the relevant property confiscation. The court therefore granted summary judgment in favor of Swensen for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and dismissed the claims against Swensen without prejudice to bringing a new action after Hawthorne exhausted his administrative remedies.

Ruling on Yanez and Thomas

The court granted summary judgment in favor of Yanez on the retaliation claim. The relevant property removal occurred at 12:20 a.m. on August 26, 2016, when Yanez was not on duty. The court also found no evidence creating a genuine factual dispute that Yanez knew about Hawthorne’s draft complaint.

The court granted summary judgment in favor of Thomas on the retaliation claim. It found no sufficient evidence that Thomas knew about the draft complaint or that the property confiscation was motivated by Hawthorne’s protected conduct. Applying the test for prison regulations and restrictions, the court found that removing loose papers was reasonably related to the legitimate goal of protecting Hawthorne from self-harm. The record showed a recent suicide attempt, repeated window coverings that limited staff visibility, alternative privacy measures, and controlled access to legal materials.

The court also granted summary judgment in favor of Thomas on the access-to-the-courts claim. It found that Hawthorne had not shown actual prejudice from the confiscation because he was able to file this action and the filing included claims arising after the confiscation.

Disposition

The court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, entered judgment for the defendants against Hawthorne, and closed the case. Because the court found no constitutional violation, it did not need to decide whether the defendants were separately protected by qualified immunity. The order was signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.