United States District Court, D. Oregon
Tyee Wilson, Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution, pro se.
F. Rosenblum, Attorney General; Todd Albert, Senior Assistant
Attorney General; Oregon Department of Justice, Of Attorneys
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL H. SIMON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
is an inmate in the custody of the Oregon Department of
Corrections (“ODOC”). Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants, who are all employees of ODOC, violated
Plaintiff's rights under the First, Fifth, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution when
they prevented Plaintiff from attending a prison disciplinary
hearing for an assault that he allegedly committed, later
found Plaintiff in violation of prison rules without cause,
and subjected Plaintiff to unlawful disciplinary actions. On
April 7, 2017, Defendants moved for summary judgment on the
basis that they are entitled to qualified immunity. ECF 32.
Plaintiff did not file an opposition to Defendants'
motion. On April 17, 2017, however, Plaintiff moved pursuant
to Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to
defer consideration of Defendants' summary judgment
motion pending additional discovery. ECF 40. On May 10, 2017,
Defendants moved to stay discovery as to all Defendants but
Akana and Deacon pending resolution of their summary judgment
motion. ECF 50. In addition, Plaintiff has filed several
motions to compel production sought from Defendants.
reasons below, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion to
defer consideration of Defendants' summary judgment
motion, Plaintiff's motions to compel, and
Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to conduct
pretrial discovery. The Court grants Defendants' motion
to stay discovery.
relevant times, Plaintiff was an inmate at the Two Rivers
Correctional Institution (“Two Rivers”).
Defendants Akana and Deacon are ODOC correctional officers
assigned to Two Rivers. The remaining Defendants are all ODOC
employees serving in supervisory or managerial roles at Two
Rivers or the ODOC Administrative Building. Defendants Boston
and Young (lieutenants), Jackson and Jorgenson (captains),
Myrick (Superintendent), and Ridley (Assistant Supervisor of
Security) also work at Two Rivers. Defendants Williamson and
Barnett are inspectors general at the ODOC Administration
Building. Defendants Nofziger and Gower also work at the ODOC
Administration Building, as a Hearings Administrator and
Assistant Director of Operations, respectively, and Defendant
Peters is ODOC Director.
was accused of licking a fellow inmate's face on July 6,
2015. According to a one-page misconduct report submitted by
Defendant Boston the following week (see Exhibit 1
to Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF 2-1 at 1), Boston received
an email from the State's Prison Rape Elimination Act
(“PREA”) Coordinator relaying a complaint that
Plaintiff had licked a fellow inmate. Boston states in the
misconduct report: “At the conclusion of my
investigation, I have determined that there is enough
evidence to support the claim that [Plaintiff] stood up from
eating his morning meal, leaned over to his right and licked
the face of [a fellow inmate].” Based on the misconduct
report, on July 16, 2015, Plaintiff was removed from the
Administrative Housing Unit and placed in the Disciplinary
Segregation Unit (“DSU”), with resulting loss or
restriction of privileges.
22, 2015, Defendant Deacon conducted the disciplinary hearing
regarding Plaintiff's alleged assault. Plaintiff
requested an investigation, a video recording of the unit at
the time of the assault, and to call several witnesses. On
the day of the hearing, while waiting to be brought into the
hearings room, Plaintiff engaged in a verbal confrontation
with Defendant Akana. As relayed in a separate misconduct
report submitted by Akana regarding the confrontation
(see Exhibit 2 to Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF 2-1
at 3), Plaintiff ignored Akana's orders to remain quiet.
Because of Plaintiff's insubordination and disobedience
and because other inmates were present, Akana decided to
return Plaintiff to his cell, without allowing Plaintiff to
attend the pending disciplinary hearing. Plaintiff alleges
that Akana's actions were in retaliation for grievances
that Plaintiff previously filed against Akana.
after Akana returned Plaintiff to his cell, Plaintiff asked
Deacon for permission to attend the disciplinary hearing or
to have the hearing postponed. Deacon declined and conducted
the disciplinary hearing in Plaintiff's absence, noting
that Plaintiff had been restricted from attending the hearing
based on his allegedly disruptive behavior. Deacon denied
Plaintiff's request for witnesses on the basis that the
proffered testimony would not constitute a defense to the
charges. Deacon denied Plaintiff's request for an
investigation for the same reason.
found by a preponderance of the evidence that Plaintiff
committed Inmate Assault II by causing his body fluids to
come into contact with another person. See Exhibit 3
to Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF 2-1 at 3-4. Deacon
sanctioned Plaintiff to 45 days of disciplinary segregation,
14 days of lost privileges, and a $100 fine.
28, 2015, Plaintiff attended a second disciplinary hearing.
This hearing related to Plaintiff's allegedly disruptive
actions in the DSU hallway before his July 22nd disciplinary
hearing. Plaintiff attended this hearing, and Deacon granted
Plaintiff's request for an investigation, witnesses, and
video records. The investigating officer, Defendant Young,
concluded that the evidence supported allegations of
Disrespect I and Disobedience of an Order (but not the other
alleged violations, Extortion I and Compromising an
Employee). Deacon, however, ultimately concluded that the
facts did not support a charge of Disrespect I, but were
sufficient to find Plaintiff had committed Disrespect II,
based on Plaintiff's actions “direct[ing] hostile,
sexual, abusive or threatening language or gestures . . .
under circumstances that create[ ] a threat to safety,
security or orderly operation of the facility.” Exhibit
8(b) to Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF 2-1 at 18. Deacon
sanctioned Plaintiff to ten days of disciplinary segregation,
ten days' loss of yard privileges, and a $25 fine.
Plaintiff alleges that each of the remaining Defendants
participated actively or by omission in the administration of
the above sanctions or of Plaintiff's formal grievances
regarding the same.
23, 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, seeking damages and declaratory relief. Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants violated his rights under the First,
Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States
Constitution. ECF 2. Plaintiff alleges, specifically, that
Akana wrongfully prevented Plaintiff from attending the July
22, 2015, disciplinary hearing regarding the alleged assault
by Plaintiff, in retaliation for grievances about Akana that
Plaintiff had previously filed. Plaintiff also alleges that
Deacon wrongfully proceeded with the hearing notwithstanding
Plaintiffs absence and request for postponement. According to
Plaintiff, Deacon then found Plaintiff in violation of prison
rules without cause. Therefore, Plaintiff argues, the
resulting disciplinary sanctions were unlawful. Based on
those allegations, Plaintiff argues that Deacon and Akana
violated his substantive and procedural due process rights
under the Fourteenth Amendment and that Akana further
violated Plaintiffs First Amendment rights by doing so in
retaliation for Plaintiffs grievances against him.
alleges that Boston and Akana, by submitting and endorsing
the two misconduct reports against Plaintiff, caused
Plaintiff an atypical and significant hardship in violation
of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights and the Eight
Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment,
by subjecting Plaintiff to solitary confinement in the DSU
without cause. Plaintiff alleges that Jackson, who signed the
first misconduct report as the “Reviewing Supervisor,
” and Jorgenson, who signed the second misconduct
report in the same capacity, also thereby violated Plaintiffs
Eighth Amendment rights.
argues that Myrick, Williamson, Barnett, Nofziger, Gower,
Ridley, and Peters violated Plaintiffs rights under the
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by “refusing to
address, resolve, properly train, or hold [Akana and Deacon]
accountable” for violating Plaintiffs rights and by
“upholding the decisions made by ...