Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bristol v. Peters

United States District Court, D. Oregon

November 27, 2018

JOHN THOMAS BRISTOL, Plaintiff,
v.
COLETTE S. PETERS, BRAD CAIN, MELISSA NOFZIGER, DAWN MEYER, SAM M. HAGY, JOHN DOES, each sued in their individual and official capacities, Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          STACIE F. BECKERMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         John Thomas Bristol (“Bristol”) filed a complaint against five Oregon Department of Corrections (“ODOC”) employees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights arising from their revocation of Bristol's transitional leave status without first providing the protections set forth in Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972).[1] (ECF No. 1.) Bristol voluntarily dismissed defendant Colette S. Peters from this case, and the Court refers to the four remaining defendants as the “State Defendants.” Bristol seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and damages. (Compl. at 15-16.)

         The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment.[2] (ECF Nos. 19, 22.) The Court heard oral argument on both motions. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants in part Bristol's motion for summary judgment, and grants in part the State Defendants' motion for summary judgment.[3]

         BACKGROUND

         Bristol was sentenced to serve a 35-month prison term in ODOC custody and a 36-month term of post-prison supervision following his September 23, 2014 conviction for Delivery of Cocaine. (Erik E. Eklund Am. Decl. Ex. 2 at 6-7, Ex. 5 at 17-19, Mar. 12, 2018.) On May 12, 2015, while still in custody, Bristol applied to participate in an alternative incarceration program (“AIP”).[4] (Michael R. Washington Decl. ¶ 4; Ex. 3, Mar. 12, 2018.) On October 28, 2015, ODOC moved Bristol from Santiam Correctional Institution to Powder River Correctional Facility (“PRCF”) to participate in the AIP Substance Abuse Treatment Program. (Washington Decl. Ex. 4.)

         After completing the first component of the AIP, ODOC approved Bristol for its Short Term Transitional Leave (“STTL”) program, to begin on June 29, 2016 and continue until September 27, 2016 when “post-prison supervision begins.” (Washington Decl. Ex. 6; Eklund Am. Decl. Ex. 5 at 50.) Subsection (4) of OAR § 291-062-0110 defines “Short-Term Transition Leave/Non-Prison Leave” as a “period of leave not to exceed 90 days preceding an established release date that allows an inmate opportunity to secure appropriate transitional support when necessary for successful reintegration into the community . . . . For purposes of these rules, short-term transitional leave is non-prison leave.” However, subsection (5) of that provision defines “Term of Incarceration” to include “any time an inmate spends on short-term transitional/non-prison leave . . . .”

         In accordance with the STTL authorization, ODOC released Bristol into the community under the supervision of Multnomah County Community Corrections. Bristol resided at Bridges to Change, a privately-owned transitional home in Multnomah County. In addition to the “General Conditions” for STTL, Bristol was also subject to “Special Conditions” on release. (Eklund Am. Decl. Ex. 5 at 51-53.) Bristol's “Special Conditions” included:

1. I agree to submit to Department of Corrections structured sanctioning process as describe[d] in DOC rule 58.[5]
. . . .
3. Abide curfew imposed by PO.
4. Abide by any geographical restrictions imposed by the supervising officer.
5. Maintain daily treatment log. Daily [tracking of] activities while on transitional leave shall total no less than 14 hours per day. Offender shall log daily activities in detail . . . .
. . . .
7. Shall abide by and successfully complete/discharge from aftercare as developed by PRCF/New Directions Residential Alcohol/Drug Treatment Program . . . .
. . . .
9. Do not own/oNo. C. 10-04470 LB, 2011 WL 4344160, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2011) (finding that, absent a showing of good cause, a court may dismiss a complaint for failure to serve Doe defendants within the time allowed by Rule 4(m)). Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Doe defendants.perate a motor vehicle without prior written permission of supervising officer.
. . . .
13. Shall submit to assessment and evaluation to develop a case plan for supervision and/or treatment.
. . . .
[x] Attend alcohol and drug support group meetings/treatment approved by parole officer.
[x] Attend community meetings on a schedule to be determined by the parole officer.
. . . .
[x] Consent to search computer or other electronic equipment upon request of PO.
[x] Attend cognitive programming as directed by PO.
[x] Submit to polygraph testing at parole officer's discretion and ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.