Rhodes v. Ford

Background

Kavin Maurice Rhodes, a state prisoner representing himself, brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The remaining claims alleged retaliation for filing a prison grievance. The defendants named in the continuing claims were D. Ford and Buckhorn.

Rhodes alleged that, during a December 26, 2019 law-library visit, Ford offered him a cookie to withdraw inmate appeal PBSP-A-19-02480 and used gang-member inmates to pressure or threaten him. He alleged that Buckhorn responded to one inmate’s question about what to do by giving Rhodes a long, hard, angry stare. Rhodes also alleged that, during a January 16, 2020 law-library visit, Ford confiscated his legal papers and caused a false rules-violation report to be filed in retaliation for the appeal.

Summary-judgment ruling

Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result. The court viewed disputed evidence in the light most favorable to Rhodes.

For the December 26 incident, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants. The court concluded that the evidence did not connect the incident to Rhodes’s December 14 grievance because Ford and Buckhorn were not shown to know on December 26 that Ford was named in that appeal. The court also found that Rhodes’s evidence was insufficient to create a genuine dispute about retaliation and that Buckhorn’s alleged angry stare was insufficient to establish retaliation. The court additionally stated that, even if a constitutional violation had occurred, the defendants would have qualified immunity for that incident. Qualified immunity generally protects government officials from damages when their conduct did not violate a clearly established legal right.

For the January 16 incident, the court denied summary judgment as to Ford. The court identified a dispute between Rhodes’s account and Ford’s explanation of the incident. If Ford did not know about the appeal and the report resulted from Rhodes’s behavior, there would be no constitutional violation. But if Rhodes’s account were accepted—meaning Ford knew about the appeal and confiscated legal materials and caused the report because of it—a jury could find a constitutional violation. The court also ruled that Ford was not entitled to qualified immunity for this incident because, viewing the facts in Rhodes’s favor, a reasonable official would understand that confiscating legal materials and issuing a disciplinary report in response to a prison grievance would violate the Constitution.

Discovery motion

Rhodes filed an amended motion to compel discovery. The court denied it. Requests for the identities of the gang-member inmates would not change the outcome of the December 26 incident because Rhodes’s own evidence showed that the defendants were unaware of the appeal at that time. The court also found that requests for all prisoner complaints against the defendants at Pelican Bay State Prison were overly broad and unrelated to the claims. It found the remaining requests similarly overbroad or irrelevant and insufficiently explained as necessary to oppose summary judgment.

Disposition and next steps

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It dismissed all defendants with prejudice except Ford, and the case continues against Ford concerning the January 16, 2020 incident. The court denied the amended motion to compel.

The court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Illman for mediation or settlement proceedings under the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program. Rhodes was ordered to attend and participate, although he was not required to agree to a settlement. The case was otherwise stayed until further order.

Classification basis

This is a substantive ruling because the court decided the defendants’ Rule 56 summary-judgment motion on the merits of the retaliation claims, granting relief for one incident while allowing the claim concerning the January 16 incident against Ford to continue.