Jackson v. Villasenor

Background

Douglas V. Jackson, a prisoner representing himself, sued Correctional Officers Luna and Villasenor under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged retaliation and due-process violations arising from interactions with Villasenor, a search of Jackson’s cell, a prison rule-violation report, criminal charges, and disciplinary proceedings.

Jackson alleged that Villasenor reacted negatively when Jackson answered a question about where he was from, later confronted him, and directed another officer to search Jackson’s cell. During a mass search, a detection dog alerted to areas in Jackson’s cell. Officers then found marijuana and a cell phone. Luna and Villasenor filed a prison rule-violation report, and Jackson was referred for criminal prosecution.

The criminal charges were later dismissed “in furtherance of justice.” Jackson was found guilty in a prison disciplinary proceeding of possessing a contraband cell phone and lost 60 days of canteen, phone, yard, dayroom, and package privileges and access to electronic devices. A separate marijuana disciplinary charge was dismissed because the hearing officer found that the evidence did not substantiate it; Jackson was not punished for marijuana possession.

Retaliation claim and exhaustion

The defendants sought summary judgment on the ground that Jackson had not exhausted his available prison grievance remedies. Under the federal law governing prisoner lawsuits, a prisoner must complete available administrative remedies before suing about prison conditions. California’s process required an inmate to identify the issue and the involved staff members in the original grievance and to complete the third level of review.

Jackson’s first and second grievances challenged the allegedly false rule-violation report and the handling of his disciplinary hearing, but neither grievance mentioned retaliation or the May 5, 2018 interaction with Villasenor. The third-level responses did not decide a retaliation issue on the merits. The court also rejected Jackson’s argument that he exhausted the claim by orally discussing retaliation during a grievance investigation. The court held that this would not satisfy the applicable requirement to identify the issue in the original grievance.

The court concluded that the defendants showed an available remedy existed and that Jackson failed to complete it for his retaliation claim. Jackson did not provide evidence sufficient to rebut that showing. The court therefore granted summary judgment to the defendants on the retaliation claim.

Due-process claim concerning disciplinary proceedings

Jackson alleged that the rule-violation report was fabricated and led to prison disciplinary proceedings and criminal charges. Regarding the cell-phone discipline, the court held that Jackson did not show a protected liberty interest. The 60-day loss of privileges and loss of electronic devices, without any loss of sentence credits, was not an atypical and significant hardship or another deprivation of “real substance” under the governing standard.

The court further held that, even if a protected interest had been involved, the disciplinary finding was supported by some reliable evidence. That evidence included the officers’ report, Officer Beck’s testimony, the detection dog’s alerts, and the recovered cell phone. The court also noted that Jackson did not allege that the basic procedural protections for the disciplinary hearing—such as notice, preparation time, a written decision, and appropriate access to witnesses and evidence—were absent.

Due-process claim concerning criminal charges and marijuana

The court recognized that a person may have a due-process claim when officials deliberately fabricate evidence that causes a loss of liberty, but it held that Jackson presented no admissible evidence that the report was fabricated. The dismissal of the criminal charges did not establish that the report was false; the record stated that the charges were dismissed “in furtherance of justice.” Likewise, the dismissal of the marijuana disciplinary charge did not establish fabrication, and Jackson received no punishment for that charge.

The defendants supplied evidence supporting the report, including their sworn statements, Officer Beck’s declaration and contemporaneous report, and photographs of the marijuana and cell phone. The court held that no reasonable jury could find the required fabrication based on the record.

Disposition

Judge Edward Chen granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The defendants were entitled to judgment in their favor, and the clerk was ordered to close the file. The order disposed of Docket No. 33.