Reed v. Chavez

Background

Stephen C. Reed, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Salinas Valley State Prison officials E. Howard, J. Sanchez, A. Gullo, A. Selby, B. Chavez, and T. Gonzalez. The operative pleading was his First Amended Complaint. Defendants moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence shows that no reasonable jury could find for the opposing party.

Reed asserted two claims. First, he alleged that defendants retaliated against him for filing grievance number 158280 against Chavez. He identified three Rules Violation Reports and the discontinuation of his porter work assignment as the retaliatory actions. Second, he alleged that defendants discriminated against him because of his race by not calling him and other African American inmates to work and by imposing unfavorable working conditions, including close supervision, accusations of misconduct, and restrictions on sitting on patio benches.

Retaliation Claim

The court applied the rule that a prison-retaliation claim requires evidence that a state actor took an adverse action because of the prisoner’s 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.

The court concluded that two of the three disciplinary reports could not have been retaliation for grievance 158280 because they were issued before Reed filed that grievance. Although Howard later found Reed guilty on one of those reports, the court found no evidence that Howard acted because of the grievance or even knew about it. The court said that Reed’s disagreement with the evidence supporting the disciplinary finding and his assertion that it was false did not establish retaliation.

The court likewise found no evidence, beyond timing and speculation, that the third disciplinary report or the end of Reed’s work assignment resulted from grievance 158280. The evidence indicated that staff shortages, including shortages related to the COVID-19 pandemic, could prevent prisoners from being called to work. The court rejected Reed’s additional arguments concerning his continued absence from work, allegedly unresolved grievances, a statement attributed to Selby, defendants’ reaction to another inmate’s request, and another inmate’s job change because those facts did not establish a connection to grievance 158280. The court therefore granted summary judgment on the retaliation claim.

Racial-Discrimination Claim

The court explained that the Equal Protection Clause protects prisoners from intentional racial discrimination. To avoid summary judgment, Reed needed evidence from which a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that defendants’ decisions were racially motivated.

The court found that the evidence did not support that conclusion. Although two other African American inmates stated that they were not called back to work, Reed’s evidence also showed that 29 other African American inmates were placed on the critical-worker list and allowed to return. The court further stated that evidence about the numbers of African American, White, and Hispanic inmates called back to work did not support an inference of discrimination without evidence comparing those numbers with the eligible inmate population.

Regarding the alleged working conditions, one other African American inmate described similar conditions, but there was no evidence that workers of other races were treated differently. The court therefore granted summary judgment on the racial-discrimination claim.

Grievance Investigation

The court rejected defendants’ characterization of Reed’s allegations as asserting a separate retaliation claim based on an inadequate grievance investigation. It held that the First Amended Complaint did not allege that the investigation was retaliatory. The court also held that inadequate investigation or processing of a prison grievance, standing alone, does not implicate a constitutional right because there is no constitutional right to a prison grievance system. The court found that the pleading stated no legally cognizable claim based on the investigation.

Disposition

The court determined that defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the entirety of Reed’s two claims and that no portion of those claims remained. The motion for summary judgment was granted, and judgment was entered in favor of defendants. The motion for appointment of counsel and a settlement conference was denied. The opinion also states that a scheduling order was unnecessary in light of the existing schedule and other orders.