Daniel Matthews v. J. Taylor ( 2021 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUN 22 2021
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL J. MATTHEWS, No. 20-36008
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-01958-SBD
v.
MEMORANDUM*
J. TAYLOR, Superintendent Eastern
Oregon Correctional Institution; H.
RILEY, Case Manager at EOCI; J.
DUVAL, Behavioral Sciences Manager at
EOCI; MILLER, Sgt. at EOCI; WHITE,
Corrections officer at EOCI; MEAD,
Corrections officer at EOCI; TESTER,
Corrections officer at EOCI; CURTIS
ULRICH, Correctional Officer, in
individual and professional capacities;
JOHN DOE, (2) Correctional Officer at
EOCI; N. SOBOTTA, Grievance
coordinator at EOCI; MORRISON, Case
Manager at EOCI; T. CHASE, Prescriber
at EOCI; J. FRAZIER, in professional and
individual capacity; MAILROOM STAFF
AT EOCI; BRIGITTE AMSBERRY, in
professional and individual capacity;
THOMAS LEMENS, in professional and
individual capacity; YESENIA RANGEL,
Mailroom Supervisor, in individual and
professional capacity; GREG CLARK,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Mailroom Supervisor, in individual and
professional capacity; JAMES GALLINO,
in individual and professional capacities;
STEVE BRUNING, in individual and
professional capacities; KIMBERLY
CARRIER, in individual and professional
capacities; GREGORY A. CARLSON, in
individual and professional capacities;
MATTHEW KEYSER, in individual and
professional capacities; TRINA N.
WHITAKER, in individual and
professional capacities,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Stacie F. Beckerman, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 21, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Daniel Matthews, an Oregon prisoner, appeals the district court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of the Oregon Department of Corrections (“ODOC”)
officials against whom he filed his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. We affirm.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2 20-36008
The district court properly granted summary judgment for the ODOC
officials on many of Matthews’ claims based on his failure to exhaust available
administrative remedies before filing this action. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Albino
v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). Matthews’ argument that
the grievance process was unavailable to him because he feared retaliation for
using it does not excuse his failure to exhaust. The record lacks evidence that he
actually feared retaliation for properly completing the grievance process or that any
fear of retaliation would have been objectively reasonable. See McBride v. Lopez,
807 F.3d 982, 986–88 (9th Cir. 2015). Nor was the grievance process rendered
unavailable by ODOC’s rule limiting the number of grievances that a prisoner can
file per week and month; the record shows that none of Matthews’ grievances were
denied on that basis. Finally, grievance coordinator, N. Sobotta, did not obstruct
the grievance process by “forcing” Matthews to alter the date on two of his
grievances. The record shows that the change in date did not affect the outcomes
of the grievances, and Matthews was not hindered from filing more grievances
thereafter.
The district court also properly granted summary judgment for Sobotta on
Matthews’ retaliation and due process claims. Matthews produced no evidence
that any of Sobotta’s actions, in processing his grievances and having him make
3 20-36008
non-substantive changes to two grievances, would chill an ordinary person’s
exercise of First Amendment rights, or that her conduct failed to advance
legitimate penological purposes. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567–69
(9th Cir. 2005); cf. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 94–95, 126 S. Ct. 2378,
2387–88, 165 L. Ed. 2d 368 (2006). Nor did Matthews have a liberty interest in a
particular grievance procedure. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860–61 (9th
Cir. 2003). Sobotta had legitimate reasons for denying his grievances, and her
handling of those grievances did not impose an atypical and significant hardship on
him or affect the degree of his confinement. See Chappell v. Mandeville, 706 F.3d
1052, 1063–65 (9th Cir. 2013).
Summary judgment in favor of the mailroom officials on Matthews’
retaliation, due process, and access to the courts claims was similarly appropriate.
Matthews produced no evidence that these officials ripped, censored, or otherwise
misplaced any of his mail, or that they acted with any retaliatory animus. See
Rhodes, 408 F.3d at 567–68; see also Wood v. Yordy, 753 F.3d 899, 904–05 (9th
Cir. 2014). Additionally, summary judgment on Matthews’ access to the courts
claim was proper because he submitted no evidence showing how the loss of his
friend’s declaration affected his ability to obtain post-conviction relief. See
Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 413–14, 122 S. Ct. 2179, 2186, 153 L. Ed.
4 20-36008
2d 413 (2002); Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348, 116 S. Ct. 2174, 2178, 135 L.
Ed. 2d 606 (1996).
Finally, the district court also properly granted summary judgment for the
administrative segregation officials on Matthews’ excessive force claim. Matthews
offered no evidence suggesting that the officials acted maliciously and sadistically
for the very purpose of causing harm rather than in a good-faith effort to stop him
from committing suicide. Cf. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6–7, 112 S. Ct.
995, 998–99, 117 L. Ed. 2d 156 (1992); Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d 898, 903 (9th
Cir. 2002).1
AFFIRMED.
1
Because the claim against the responding officials does not amount to a
constitutional violation, Matthews’ claim against J. Frazier for supervisory liability
also fails. See Keates v. Koile, 883 F.3d 1228, 1242–43 (9th Cir. 2018).
5 20-36008