Free Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 TERRY GODDARD ATTORNEY GENERAL 2 PAUL E. CARTER (014140) 3 Assistant Attorney General 177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 1105 4 Tucson, AZ 85701-1114 (520) 388-7128 Fax (520) 628-6050 5 [email protected] 6 Attorneys for State Defendants 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA No. CV 03-2178-PHX-PGR (MHB)

9 BARRY NORTHCROSS PATTERSON, 10 11 v. 12 DORA SCHRIRO, et al. 13 14 15 Defendants. Plaintiff,

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendant Amanda Martinez, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, moves for summary

16 judgment on Plaintiff Patterson's First Amended Complaint on the grounds that it fails to 17 raise a genuine issue of material fact and she is therefore entitled to judgment as a matter 18 of law. 19 I. 20 Facts. In Count VI, the last one remaining before the Court, Patterson takes issue with the

21 manner in which deductions were made from his Inmate Banking Account in December 22 2003. Specifically, Patterson claims that on December 11, 2003, he received $100 in the 23 mail, and that Arizona Department of Corrections ("ADC") Banking Staff, including 24 Defendant Martinez, used those funds to reimburse the Department for various legal fees 25 and expenses that Patterson had incurred, leaving him with an account balance of 32 26 cents. Amended Complaint at 6D, ¶ 3. Though he notes that 32 cents is not enough

Case 2:03-cv-02178-PGR-MHB

Document 73

Filed 02/13/2008

Page 1 of 7

1 money with which to buy a stamp, id., he does not claim that he was ever denied the 2 opportunity to send out any mail due to insufficient funds in his account. 3 On December 26, Patterson received another $100, from which ADC Banking

4 deducted approximately $70 for various legal expenses he had incurred. Id. He does not 5 attribute this deduction to Martinez. He claims that on January 9, 2004, he received a 6 printout indicating that he had a spendable balance of $31.26 in his Inmate Banking 7 Account. Id. Yet, when he sought to make purchases at the "store," someone told him 8 that his account was "D.O. from 12/27/03 to 1/25/04." Id. 9 In sum, Patterson's sole allegation against Defendant Martinez is that on

10 December 11, 2003, she applied funds to cover various debts of his that he has not 11 disputed. Indeed, he does not even allege that he was denied the ability to mail any 12 particular correspondence as a result of the subject deductions from his Inmate Banking 13 Account. Nonetheless, he filed this federal action claiming that her conduct violated his 14 First Amendment right to communicate with his friends and family. 15 As an Inmate Banking employee assigned to ADC's Central Office, Martinez

16 would have had nothing to do with the processing of money orders Patterson received, 17 including making deductions for outstanding court filing fees or for goods and services 18 that he purchased. Id. at 5-7, 24-28. These functions were all undertaken at the prison 19 complex where the funds were received and the deductions themselves were all made by 20 way of an automated banking program. Id. Insofar as he may have had insufficient funds 21 or was concerned about managing his financial affairs, Patterson could also apply for 22 indigency status, whereby he could insure that he would always have access, within 23 limits, to postage for his non-legal mail. Id. at 3-4, 26-27. 24 Patterson's Inmate Banking records also confirm that the balance in his account

25 never fell below 37 cents, which was the cost of a stamp for a domestic letter at the time. 26 SOF 8-19. Indeed, though he made excessive purchases when he had insufficient funds, 2
Case 2:03-cv-02178-PGR-MHB Document 73 Filed 02/13/2008 Page 2 of 7

1 Patterson was allowed to make purchases, including postage for non-legal mail on 2 multiple occasions. Id. at 8-20. Moreover, there is no indication that he was denied non3 legal postage due to his having insufficient funds. Id. at 22-23. 4 II. 5 Martinez Had No Involvement in Making the Subject Deductions. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that

6 the defendant was personally involved in the alleged constitutional violation. See King v. 7 Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567, 568 (9th Cir. 1987) (to be liable under § 1983, government 8 officials must play an affirmative role in the constitutional deprivation alleged). But, as 9 an employee of ADC's Inmate Banking Department assigned to its Central Office, rather 10 than one of its prison complexes, she would have had no involvement in making the 11 deductions he attributes to her. SOF 5-7, 24-28. 12 Since the subject deductions were beyond her authority and control, Martinez

13 cannot be liable under § 1983 for making them. See Williams v. Bennett, 689 F.2d 1370, 14 1388 (11th Cir. 1982) ("Although each prison employee owes a duty to the inmates 15 affected by his function, that duty must be measured by the scope of discretion and extent 16 of his authority"); Pinto v. Nettleship, 737 F.2d 130, 133 (1st Cir. 1984) ("personal 17 liability in damages under section 1983 cannot be based on prison conditions beyond the 18 control of the defendant"). Civil rights violations cannot be based on vague and 19 conclusory allegations. Ivey v. Board of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 20 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Absent any evidence to the contrary, since Martinez played no 21 affirmative role in applying the subject deductions, Patterson's claim against her must 22 fail. 23 Alternatively, Patterson's sole allegation against Defendant Martinez is that on

24 December 11, 2003, she applied money in his Inmate Trust Account ("ITA") to debts that 25 he does not dispute. Amended Complaint at 6D, ¶3. He does not claim that she

26 misapplied the funds or that her actions harmed him in a constitutional sense, since he 3
Case 2:03-cv-02178-PGR-MHB Document 73 Filed 02/13/2008 Page 3 of 7

1 does not claim that he actually requested and was denied stamps needed to correspond 2 with his family or friends. Id. All he has alleged is that she and other Inmate Banking 3 staff applied his funds to reimburse his acknowledged debts to ADC, leaving him with 4 only 32 cents in his account. Id. However, his Inmate Banking records contradict him 5 and he has not come forward with any other corroborating evidence to support his 6 conclusory claim. Patterson cannot defeat summary judgment by merely demonstrating 7 "that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. 8 Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Without more, Patterson's 9 uncorroborated assumption that Martinez was involved in processing the funds he had 10 received or his unfounded belief that he might not be allowed to send out his non-legal 11 mail if he did not have sufficient funds in his ITA are far too vague to establish that she 12 violated his constitutional rights. 13 III. 14 15 Assuming Patterson was not Allowed to Send Some Non-Legal Mail Due to Insufficient Funds in his ITA, His Claim is Barred for Failing to Exhaust and Because He Had an Adequate Post Deprivation remedy. Assuming Patterson could show that he requested to mail non-legal

16 correspondence and that his request was refused, Patterson failed to grieve that refusal. 17 Whereas the Court has previously accepted Patterson's testimony that he was reliably 18 informed that Inmate Banking deductions were not grievable, he never claimed some 19 excuse for not grieving his not being permitted to send non-legal mail when he had 20 insufficient funds to pay for postage. Based on the legal authorities set forth in her 21 Supplemental Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, dkt. 59, and insofar as Patterson 22 is claiming that his First Amendment rights were violated because he was not allowed to 23 send non-legal mail (not because money was deducted from his ITA), this action should 24 be dismissed based on his failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 25 Additionally, to the extent that Patterson's claim against Martinez may derive from

26 his allegation that she improperly misappropriated his property (rather than simply 4
Case 2:03-cv-02178-PGR-MHB Document 73 Filed 02/13/2008 Page 4 of 7

1 making a permissible deduction from his account that had an unconstitutional effect), he 2 should be barred from now arguing that ADC's grievance system would not have 3 provided him with an adequate remedy. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) 4 (holding that the unauthorized and intentional deprivation of inmate property by prison 5 officials does not state a cognizable § 1983 claim if the prisoner has an adequate post6 deprivation remedy under state law). Property grievances require that inmates pursue 7 reimbursement through ADC's grievance system, following which they can file a claim 8 with Arizona State Risk Management. See DO 909.12. § 1.1. By completely bypassing 9 ADC's grievance system to complain about his First Amendment rights being abridged as 10 a result of his being denied the ability to send out non-legal mail, Patterson failed to 11 pursue two facially adequate and available post-deprivation remedies under state law, a 12 DO 802 grievance and a Risk Management claim. His § 1983 claim should therefore also 13 be barred under Hudson. 14 IV. 15 16 Assuming Patterson was not Allowed to Send Non-Legal Mail Due to Insufficient Funds in his ITA, Legitimate Penological Reasons Supported the Denial. Aside from Patterson's conclusory claim, the record does not support his assertion

17 that he was denied the ability to send out non-legal mail. SOF 20. Indeed, the record 18 demonstrates the exact opposite. On multiple occasions during the relevant timeframe, 19 Patterson had insufficient funds in his ITA, but was nevertheless provided postage for his 20 non-legal mail. Id. Moreover, since the balance in his ITA never fell below 37 cents 21 between December 11, 2003, and the end of January 2004, he always had sufficient funds 22 available to send a single letter to his family or friends. SOF 8-20. 23 Although his ITA balance never actually fell below 37 cents during the relevant

24 timeframe, Patterson did initiate excessive withdrawals from the account, beyond the 25 amount he had in it at the time. Id. By policy, ADC placed "holds" on his account, to 26 account for the overdrafts he created. Id. at 10, 18. While ADC would therefore have 5
Case 2:03-cv-02178-PGR-MHB Document 73 Filed 02/13/2008 Page 5 of 7

1 been justified in denying his requests for non-legal postage in these circumstances, his 2 ITA account statement indicates that he was provided with such postage, even though he 3 had insufficient funds in his account at the time of his request. Further, even if Patterson 4 was able to show that one or more of his requests for non­legal postage was denied due to 5 his having insufficient funds, such a denial would be completely justified since he created 6 the overdrafts on his account that existed at the time. Id. at 8-20. 7 The United States Supreme Court has articulated several factors to guide courts in

8 determining whether a challenged regulation passes constitutional muster. Turner v. 9 Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). "First, there must be a `valid, rational connection' 10 between the prison regulation and the legitimate governmental interest put forward to 11 justify it." Id. (quoting Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576, 586 (1984)). The "logical 12 connection between the regulation and the asserted goal" must not be "so remote as to 13 render the policy arbitrary or irrational," and the governmental objective must be both 14 "legitimate and neutral." Id. at 89-90. Second, it is relevant "whether there are

15 alternative means of exercising the right that remain open to prison inmates." Id. at 90. 16 Third, courts are to consider "the impact [that] accommodation of the asserted 17 constitutional right will have on guards and other inmates, and on the allocation of prison 18 resources generally." Id. And fourth, "the absence of ready alternatives is evidence of 19 the reasonableness of a prison regulation." Id. Assuming just for the sake of argument 20 that pursuant to ADC policy Patterson was refused postage for legal mail due to his 21 having insufficient funds in his ITA, all four Turner factors weigh heavily in favor of the 22 validity of such a policy. 23 First, legitimate reasons exist for denying an inmate credit to purchase anything he

24 wants regardless of his financial ability to pay for it. Second, if Patterson budgeted 25 himself more carefully and paid attention to how much money he actually had, he could 26 avoid any problems associated with having insufficient funds in his account. Third, if 6
Case 2:03-cv-02178-PGR-MHB Document 73 Filed 02/13/2008 Page 6 of 7

1 ADC could not place a hold on Inmate Banking accounts or deny inmates purchases when 2 their accounts were overdrawn, this would have an enormous financial impact on its 3 operations. Lastly, there simply is no alternative to ADC's requiring that its inmates act 4 responsibly in their financial affairs, lest its entire Inmate Banking program turn into 5 some kind of charitable organization for the benefit of all incarcerated Arizona felons. 6 Martinez had nothing to do with the deductions that form the basis for Patterson's

7 Complaint. Even if she did, ADC had legitimate penological reasons not to provide him 8 with credit to allow him to spend moneys beyond what he had. 9 V. 10 Conclusion. Defendant Martinez therefore respectfully requests that the Court enter its Order

11 and Judgment, granting her Motion for Summary Judgment, dismissing this action with 12 prejudice, awarding her taxable costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, 13 and granting such other and further relief as to it seems just and proper. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Copy of the foregoing mailed this 13th day 21 of February, 2008, to: 22 Barry N. Patterson, # 117045 ASPC-Florence-South Unit 23 P.O. Box 8400 Florence, AZ 85232-8400 24 s/mm 25 IDS04-0498/G2004-21306/142248 26 7
Case 2:03-cv-02178-PGR-MHB Document 73 Filed 02/13/2008 Page 7 of 7

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 13th day of February, 2008. TERRY GODDARD ATTORNEY GENERAL s/Paul E. Carter PAUL E. CARTER Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for State Defendants