Thomas v. Pashilk

Background

Hilbert Thomas, a California prisoner proceeding without an attorney, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials at San Quentin State Prison. The remaining defendants were R. Pashilk, R. Feston, and D. Campbell. Thomas challenged the opening of mail outside his presence and two disciplinary hearings concerning a contraband charge.

On April 1, 2021, Pashilk opened an envelope labeled “legal mail” outside Thomas’s presence. The envelope listed “William L. Schmidt, Attorney at Law” as the return addressee. The contents included a blank federal tax form that appeared discolored and crusty, and field and laboratory testing showed methamphetamine. Schmidt told Pashilk that he had never represented Thomas, did not know him, and had not sent the mail. Thomas also testified that he did not know Schmidt and had never been represented by him.

Pashilk issued a rules-violation report charging Thomas with introducing contraband into the prison. Feston presided over the first disciplinary hearing and found Thomas guilty. After an appeal, the report was reissued and Campbell presided over a second hearing, again finding Thomas guilty. The penalties included loss of time credits, work pay, and privileges, along with mandatory drug testing. After another appeal, a third hearing officer found Thomas not guilty and dismissed the report in the interests of justice, reasoning that the mail likely should have been opened in Thomas’s presence under prison regulations.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the summary-judgment standard, under which judgment is entered when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to win under the law.

Opening of mail. The court explained that prisoners have a First Amendment interest in having properly marked legal mail opened only in their presence, and a Sixth Amendment right to be present when legal mail related to a criminal matter is inspected. But legal mail consists of correspondence between a prisoner and the prisoner’s lawyer. The court held that no reasonable inference showed Thomas’s envelope was legal mail. Its contents were a methamphetamine-infused tax form, not correspondence or documents concerning a legal matter. The supposed sender did not represent Thomas, did not know him, and did not send the envelope. A false label and false return address could not convert non-legal and illegal contents into constitutionally protected legal mail.

The court also rejected Thomas’s argument that a violation of the prison’s mail-opening regulation supported his § 1983 claim. A violation of state law or prison regulations, without more, is not actionable under § 1983. The court therefore found no triable factual issue on the mail claim. It did not reach defendants’ alternative argument concerning that claim.

Disciplinary hearings. The court assumed, without deciding, that the hearings were subject to the procedural protections required by the Due Process Clause. Those protections include written notice, at least 24 hours before the hearing, an opportunity to call witnesses and present evidence when appropriate, a written explanation of the decision and evidence relied on, and assistance when needed because of illiteracy or the complexity of the case. The decision must also have some reliable evidence supporting it.

The court found that the undisputed evidence showed Thomas received these protections at both the Feston and Campbell hearings. He received notice more than 24 hours beforehand, could call witnesses and present evidence, received explanations of the findings and evidence, and received assistance from a staff assistant and an investigative employee. The guilty findings were supported by Pashilk’s report and testimony, photographs of the mail, and positive forensic test results for methamphetamine.

The court rejected Thomas’s argument that the delay between the opening of the mail and his receipt of the rules-violation report violated due process. The timing requirement in a prison operations manual was more generous than the constitutional requirements and therefore did not create a federal due-process violation. The court also held that the alleged misapplication of prison regulations concerning the penalty date could not support a § 1983 claim.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It denied Thomas’s motion for a “decree” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 79, explaining that no decree was necessary after Thomas informed the court that he had changed his name but wished to continue using “Hilbert Thomas” in the case. The clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the file. The order resolved docket numbers 63 and 78.