Inmate civil right claims alleging various prison employees and officials had violated his First, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were dismissed.

An inmate of the state prison filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging various prison employees and officials had violated his First, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. In general, the inmate complained that correctional officers harassed him in retaliation for his legal work and efforts to expose the behavior of prison staff, that staff searched his cell, interfered with his mail, confiscated his legal documents, that some staff members harassed him on the basis of his race by putting pillowcases on their heads to mimic Ku Klux Klan hoods, making gestures similar to the Nazi salute, and posting an offensive picture on his cell door. In addition, the inmate claimed that he was falsely charged with misconduct, which he later revealed was the sexual assault of another inmate. The correctional officers filed a motion for summary judgment.

The court held that verbal threats or taunts, without more, are not sufficient to constitute a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Also, the display of white pillowcase hoods, Nazi salutes and the posting of an offensive picture, while unprofessional and reprehensible, do not amount to a violation of constitutional rights, even if those things occurred.

In addition, the court recognized that an inmate facing the loss of a legally cognizable liberty interest following disciplinary proceedings has a due process right to certain procedural protections, including the opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary evidence. But this due process right is not triggered unless the prison "imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life." The court denied the procedural due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment as the inmate failed to present any evidence that the conditions he faced in disciplinary custody amounted to an "atypical and significant hardship."

Moreover, the court held that the inmate's claim that correctional officers harassed him in retaliation for corresponding with civil rights organizations fails as a matter of law. The court recognized that an inmate must show that the correctional officers' actions were sufficiently adverse to deter a person of ordinary firmness from engaging in the protected activity in order to prevail on the retaliation claim. The court pointed out that, in the prison context, it has held that the following actions were sufficient to establish the necessary adversity: several months in disciplinary confinement; denial of parole, financial penalties and transfer to an institution whose distance made regular family visits impossible; and placement in administrative segregation that severely limits access to the commissary, library, recreation and rehabilitative programs. However, the court concluded that the verbal threats and gestures of racial harassment were not sufficiently adverse to support a retaliation claim under the circumstances of this case.

Also, the inmate made two allegations for denial of access to the courts claims under the First Amendment. The inmate alleged that the defendants interfered with his mail and confiscated his legal documents and that a single officer refused to process his grievances. An inmate who alleges a violation of the right of access to the courts must show actual injury, which can be done by showing the correctional officers' actions resulted in the loss or rejection of a claim. As the inmate did not plead or present any evidence that he had any lawsuits pending, or that the officers' alleged actions resulted in the lose or dismissal of a claim, the court denied his claim.

As such, the defendants were granted summary judgment on the plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C.S. §1983.

Case Law Alert - 4th Qtr 2012