PRISONER HAS NO RETALIATION CLAIM FOR BEING PLACED IN ADMINISTRATIVE SEGREGATION

by Marty E. Zemming, Esq.

Background

Plaintiff, a former state prisoner, alleged he informed a staff sergeant about abusive language against inmates by a prison guard.  As a result, the guard subsequently allegedly called him a “f* * *ing rat” in front of and within hearing distance of other inmates. A week later, the defendant guard went through his property and told him, “You listen to me and you listen to me good. Loose lips sink ships.” Defendant allegedly repeated “Loose lips sink ships” a few more times, and stated “You better understand it. I don't like rats going to the lieutenant and complaining about me.” The statements were allegedly made in an area where other inmates could hear. Plaintiff alleges the guard made the comments in retaliation for him having complained earlier about his “abusive language” to the sergeant.

Plaintiff filed a grievance based on the guard’s comments and was thereafter placed in administrative segregation by a sergeant. The sergeant allegedly told him that if he dropped his complaint, he would be released from segregation. Three months later plaintiff was released from administrative segregation.

Plaintiff brought an action asserting civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming retaliation and defendant guard filed a motion for summary judgment that no facts show he was involved in plaintiff's placement in segregation.

Standard for Retaliation Claim

A prisoner suing prison officials under section 1983 for retaliation must allege that he was retaliated against for exercising his constitutional rights and that the retaliatory action does not advance legitimate penological goals. Barnett v. Centoni 31 F.3d 813, 815-16 (9th Cir.1994).  Retaliation claims are composed of five elements: (1) an assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner's protected conduct and that such action (4) chilled plaintiff's First Amendment rights and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. Id. at 567-68.  Furthermore, a plaintiff must present evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to establish a link between the exercise of constitutional rights and the alleged retaliatory actions.

A prisoner must submit evidence to establish a link between the exercise of constitutional rights and the allegedly retaliatory action. Pratt v. Rowland 65 F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir.1995). The prisoner alleging retaliatory action must show his First Amendment rights were actually chilled by the retaliatory action. A retaliatory placement in administrative segregation for filing grievances has been found to state a claim for relief. Austin v. Terhune 367 F.3d 1167, 117 (9th Cir.2004).

Outcome

In Aidnik v. California Medical Facility 2011 WL 794906, 3 (E.D.Cal. 2011).  The facts showed the guard did not escort plaintiff to administrative segregation or generate or sign the transfer order.  He did not generate or sign any of the memos or confidential disclosure forms associated with plaintiff’s transfer to administrative segregation. In fact, he did not instruct anyone to place plaintiff in administrative segregation, nor did he preside over any hearings regarding the transfer.

Because the Court in Aidnik found no direct evidence the guard was in any manner involved in plaintiff's placement into administrative segregation, the Court found there was no causal link between defendant and plaintiff's placement in segregation. The sergeant’s statements, assuming they were even admissible, were insufficient to make a connection between the guard and plaintiff's placement in segregation. As a result, the Court granted summary judgment.