Summary
The memorandum addresses defendants’ partial motion to dismiss Yusuf Washington’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint arising from his incarceration at SCI-Frackville. The court considers claims involving access to the courts, conspiracy, exercise and law-library restrictions, due process in prison disciplinary proceedings, retaliation, and conditions of confinement. Based on the excerpt, the court grants the motion in part and denies it in part, including dismissing the conspiracy, access-to-courts, and exercise-or-law-library claims, with leave to amend the conspiracy claim.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Washington plausibly pleaded a § 1983 conspiracy based on alleged coordination among prison officials to deny law-library access.
- Whether denial of law-library access stated a First Amendment access-to-courts claim without an alleged actual injury or lost nonfrivolous legal claim.
- Whether requiring Washington to choose between recreation and law-library time stated an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim.
- Whether Washington plausibly pleaded a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due-process claim based on the alleged denial of witnesses and documentary evidence during a prison disciplinary proceeding.
- Whether denial of a grievance and allegedly retaliatory verbal comments constituted adverse action supporting a First Amendment retaliation claim.
- Whether the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause applied to claims against state prison officials.
Holdings
- The complaint failed to plausibly allege an agreement or meeting of the minds among Blommel, Valinsky, Gomonda, and Adamcik to deprive Washington of constitutional rights.
- Washington failed to state an access-to-courts claim because he did not allege an actual injury involving the loss of a nonfrivolous or arguable underlying claim or the absence of another available remedy.
- Requiring Washington to choose between out-of-cell recreation and law-library access while on cell restriction did not plausibly allege an Eighth Amendment violation.
- Washington plausibly pleaded a due-process claim against Warren, Hickok, and Wiederhold by alleging that he was denied the opportunity to call witnesses and present evidence during a disciplinary hearing; the claim could proceed despite the court's conclusion that 150 days of disciplinary custody alone did not create a protected liberty interest.
- Washington failed to state a First Amendment retaliation claim because the denial of his grievance and the alleged isolated verbal harassment were not sufficiently adverse actions.
- The Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause did not apply to Washington's claims against state prison officials, so the Fifth Amendment claim was dismissed.
Key quotations
“To state an access to courts claim, the “actual injury” he must demonstrate is the “lost ... chance to pursue a ‘nonfrivolous’ or ‘arguable’” legal claim.” (at 15)
“the 150-day disciplinary custody term imposed against Washington was not of such magnitude as to implicate a protected liberty interest.” (at 26)
“The denial of grievances is not an adverse action for retaliation purposes.” (at 31)
Factual background
Washington alleged that prison officials denied him scheduled law-library access while he was on cell restriction, causing him to choose between recreation and the law library. He also alleged that officials mishandled and incompletely served a misconduct report, preventing him from calling witnesses and presenting evidence, and that he received 150 days of disciplinary custody after being found guilty. Washington further alleged retaliation for filing grievances and unconstitutional conditions in the restricted housing unit, including exposure to cold weather without protective clothing.
Procedural history
Washington filed a § 1983 complaint alleging violations of the First, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments arising from his incarceration at SCI-Frackville. Defendants moved to partially dismiss. The court granted the motion as to the conspiracy, First Amendment access-to-courts, Eighth Amendment exercise-and-law-library, First Amendment retaliation, and Fifth Amendment claims; denied it as to the Fourteenth Amendment disciplinary-process claim against Warren, Hickok, and Wiederhold; and granted leave to amend only the conspiracy claim.