Larson v. Cooper

Summary

The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Department of Corrections officials in a prisoner’s retaliation claim arising from the suspension of his contact-visitation privileges. The court held that Larson failed to provide evidence creating a reasonable inference that the restrictions were imposed for a retaliatory purpose, while the uncontroverted evidence showed a legitimate administrative justification based on his admitted disobedience of a staff order.

Holdings

1. A prisoner alleging retaliation must provide evidence not only of protected conduct and adverse action but also of a retaliatory purpose and, where legitimate penological reasons are shown, evidence tending to negate those reasons or establish pretext. Chronology alone was insufficient here, so summary judgment was proper.
2. On the record and under the court's prior decision involving the same conduct, Larson's holding his wife's hand and refusing to release it did not qualify as constitutionally protected religious conduct for purposes of his retaliation claim.
3. A prison disciplinary acquittal did not, by itself, negate the administrative justification for continuing the visitation restriction where Larson repeatedly admitted that he disobeyed the officer's direct order.
4. The court declined to address Larson's substantive due process arguments because it had recently rejected similar claims in Larson v. Cooper, 90 P.3d 125 (Alaska 2004).

Questions Presented

1. Whether Larson presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact that prison officials restricted or continued restricting his contact visits in retaliation for constitutionally protected conduct.
2. Whether Larson's holding his wife's hand and refusing to obey the order to stop constituted constitutionally protected religious conduct.
3. Whether Larson's acquittal in the prison disciplinary proceeding negated the legitimate administrative reasons offered for continuing the visitation restriction.
4. Whether summary judgment was proper on Larson's substantive due process claim.

Disposition

affirmed