Adam Michael Wallace v. Mark Nooth, David Pedro, and Liza Emory

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Oregon granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment in Adam Michael Wallace’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The court rejected Wallace’s Eighth Amendment claim concerning alleged rodent infestation, First Amendment retaliation claim arising from removal from a kitchen assignment, and Fourteenth Amendment due process claim. The court also found no basis for supervisory liability and declined to address Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff failed to make an objective showing of a sufficiently serious deprivation or a subjective showing of deliberate indifference by defendants regarding rodent infestation.
2. Plaintiff failed to establish a causal connection between his protected conduct (filing a grievance) and the adverse action (removal from kitchen assignment).
3. Plaintiff failed to establish a deprivation of a protected liberty or property interest because a work assignment is not a constitutionally protected interest.
4. Defendants Nooth and Pedro are not liable because plaintiff failed to establish any underlying constitutional violation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff established an Eighth Amendment violation based on alleged rodent infestation.
2. Whether plaintiff established a First Amendment retaliation claim for removal from kitchen assignment.
3. Whether plaintiff established a Fourteenth Amendment due process violation for removal from work assignment.
4. Whether defendants Nooth and Pedro are liable under § 1983 supervisory liability.

Disposition

affirmed