United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
HONORABLE RANER C. COLLINS, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE
Pending
before the Court is Plaintiff Cassius Clayton Whitehead's
Second Motion to File Supplemental Claims. (Doc. 90.)
Plaintiff's original Motion to Supplement asked the Court
to allow him to add allegations that Arizona Department of
Corrections Officer P. Dudley confiscated his and another
inmates' legal documents, in violation of his
constitutional rights to access the courts and in retaliation
for exercising his First Amendment right to file grievances
and federal lawsuits. (Doc. 60-1 at 2, 4-5.) In addition,
Plaintiff claimed that ADC Director Charles L. Ryan
implemented and enforced Department Order 902.10.1.3, which
is a retaliatory policy against inmates who assist other
inmates to file grievances and litigate claims against ADC
staff. Id. at 5. On January 22, 2019, the Court
issued an Order denying Plaintiff's original Motion to
Supplement without prejudice. (Doc. 86.) The Court indicated
that Plaintiff may be able to remedy the disparities in the
supplement through amendment. Id. Plaintiff has
since filed the instant Motion to Supplement addressing these
disparities. (Doc. 90.) The Court has reviewed Plaintiff
Motion to Supplement (Doc. 90), Defendants' response
(Doc. 92), and Plaintiff's reply (Doc. 96) and will grant
Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 90). The Court will order
Defendants Dudley and Ryan to respond to the Count Four,
First Amendment retaliation and access-to-court claims, and
will permit limited discovery on the events surrounding the
confiscation of legal paperwork in Plaintiff's
possession.
I.
Procedural History
a.
First Amended Complaint
After
the Court screened Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint,
three claims remained. In Count Two, Plaintiff raises a
threat-to-safety claim against Defendants Torres, Barnes, and
Morrison relating to his work on a hazmat crew. (Doc. 26 at
10-13.) In Count Three, Plaintiff raises a § 1983 claim
alleging that Defendants Ryan, Pratt, and Corizon engaged in
a practice or custom of denying medical care to prisoners to
save money. Id. at 14-16. Count Four includes a
four-part claim: three claims of First Amendment retaliation
against Defendants Randall, Leonard, and Torres, and a
threat-to-safety claim against Defendant Leonard.
Id. at 17-20. Count Four alleges that the Defendants
engaged in a pattern of preventing and interfering with
Plaintiff's ability to pursue federal claims, access the
courts, and to assist others in doing so. Id.
The
Court set August 14, 2018 as the deadline to amend pleadings.
(Doc. 44.) Prior to this deadline, Plaintiff filed a Motion
to Join Additional Parties (Doc. 59) and a Motion to
Supplement his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 60), seeking to
add claims against both CO Dudley and Defendant Ryan for
retaliation and for preventing access to the courts. (Doc.
60-1.)
The
Court denied both motions without prejudice. (Doc. 86.) The
Court indicated that Plaintiff's amendment shared a
common legal issue with Count Four of the First Amended
Complaint, and supplementation may be appropriate if
Plaintiff could remedy the deficiencies in the supplemental
pleading. Id. at 5. Specifically, for his
access-to-courts claim, Plaintiff needed to show that he
suffered actual injury from Defendants' actions.
Id. at 8. Furthermore, to remedy his First Amendment
retaliation claim, Plaintiff needed to demonstrate that the
retaliatory action failed to advance a legitimate penological
interest. Id. On February 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed
the instant Second Motion to File Supplemental Claims (Doc.
90) with his lodged proposed supplement (Doc. 91).
b.
Plaintiff's Supplemental Motion
Plaintiff's Supplemental Motion alleges that CO Dudley
and Defendant Ryan retaliated against him in violation of his
First Amendment right to file his own, and assist others in
filing, administrative grievances and federal suits against
ADC officials. (Doc. 90 at 3.) Plaintiff also alleges that in
theory the ADC's policy is designed to allow inmates to
assist one another legally, but in reality ADC Department
Order 902.10.1.3 limits an inmate's ability to access to
legal documents to help filing administrative and federal
grievances for other inmates. Id. at 3-4.
Specifically, the Order “does not permit inmates to be
in possession of other inmates['] legal material.”
(Doc. 92-1 at 2; Doc. 90 at 2.) Defendant Ryan's
enforcement of this policy is a First Amendment violation and
is retaliatory because it prevents assistance by jailhouse
lawyers and is not related to a legitimate penological goal.
Id. at 3-5.
Plaintiff
claims that on August 4, 2018, CO Dudley searched, seized,
and confiscated legal paperwork in Plaintiff's
possession, including a draft of his First Amended Complaint
in this matter. (Doc. 90 at 2.) The seizure also included
legal paperwork belonging to another prisoner, Charles Lee,
for whom Plaintiff was assisting in filing a federal claim.
(Doc. 90 at 2.) CO Dudley told Plaintiff that none of the
legal paperwork would be returned. (Doc. 90 at 2.) Plaintiff
filed a grievance based on the seizure, and Defendant Ryan
responded that Plaintiff's documents were seized pursuant
to ADC Department Order 902. (Doc. 92-1 at 2; Doc. 90 at 2.)
At this
time, Plaintiff claims the ADC policy mandated CO Dudley to
“return the legal materials to the owner regardless of
whether or not disciplinary action was taken.” (Doc. 90
at 4.) The materials were never returned to Plaintiff and he
alleges that CO Dudley indicated he never intended to return
the paperwork.
Plaintiff's
asserts that CO Dudley and Defendant Ryan's retaliatory
actions chilled his First Amendment right to file grievances
and speak out against constitutional violations, and did not
further any legitimate correctional objective. Id.
at 3. Furthermore, the ADC's policy that inmates are not
permitted to be in the possession of other inmates' legal
documents hampered Plaintiff's constitutional right to
access to the courts on behalf of inmate Charles Lee.
Id. at 4-5.
c.
Defendant's Response
Defendants
Leonard, Morrison, Randall, and Torres (collectively
“Defendants”) argue that the Court should deny
Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement because it will cause
undue delay and prejudice Defendants. (Doc. 92. at 3.)
Defendants note that the supplement not only adds new
defendants; it includes actions which occurred much later
than the initial claims. Id. Furthermore, Discovery
has concluded, and adding the additional claim will force
reopening of discovery, causing prejudice to defendants and
undue delay. Id. at 4. Defendants contend that
permitting the additional claims at trial will also prejudice
a jury against them for incidents that were unrelated to
them. Id.
In
addition, Defendants make a confusing argument that Plaintiff
has not demonstrated he has exhausted the supplemental claims
because Plaintiff did not include the allegations in his
First Amended Complaint. Id. at 4-5. But Defendants
concede that he could not add these allegations at that time
because the issues were still in the administrative grievance
process. Id. at 5. Moreover, even if the Court
considered Plaintiff's claims exhausted as to the
confiscated legal property, Defendants argue that
...