Blaisdell

|
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
 26 views
of 20

Please download to get full document.

View again

Description
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RICHARD H. BLAISDELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. FRAPPIEA, Defendant-Appellee. No. 10-16845 D.C. No. 2:08-cv-01462-JAT OPINION Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted April 16, 2013—San Francisco, California Filed September 10, 2013 Before: Alfred T. Goodwin, Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, and N. Randy Smith, Circuit Judges. Opinio
Share
Tags
Transcript
  FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT R  ICHARD H.   B LAISDELL ,  Plaintiff-Appellant  ,v.C.   F RAPPIEA ,  Defendant-Appellee . No. 10-16845D.C. No.2:08-cv-01462-JATOPINIONAppeal from the United States District Courtfor the District of ArizonaJames A. Teilborg, District Judge, PresidingArgued and SubmittedApril 16, 2013—San Francisco, CaliforniaFiled September 10, 2013Before: Alfred T. Goodwin, Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain,and N. Randy Smith, Circuit Judges.Opinion by Judge O’Scannlain  B LAISDELL V .   F RAPPIEA 2 SUMMARY * Prisoner Civil Rights The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgmentand held that an inmate did not engage in constitutionally protected activity when he served a prison official with asummons and complaint on another inmate’s behalf.Plaintiff alleged that a prison official retaliated againsthim by issuing him a disciplinary report after he attempted toserve her with a federal summons and complaint on behalf of another inmate. The panel first held that the district court didnot err by determining that plaintiff waived his claim that his prior litigation activity against the prison triggered retaliationgiven his acknowledgment, in his own motion for summary judgment, that the disciplinary report was not issued becauseof his other litigation activities.The panel held that the access-to-court doctrine did not provide plaintiff with constitutional protection. The panelfurther held that because of the general incompatibility between prison and free association, and because there wasno evidence of expressive association, the First Amendmentdid not protect plaintiff’s attempted service of process on a prison official. * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.  B LAISDELL V .   F RAPPIEA 3 COUNSEL Dawn Sestito, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA,argued the cause and filed the briefs for the plaintiff-appellant. Mica Doctoroff, UCLA School of Law NinthCircuit Clinic, Los Angeles, CA, also argued the cause for the plaintiff-appellant. With them on the briefs was Katharine S.Mercer, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA. Nicholas D. Acedo, Struck Wieneke & Love, P.L.C.,Chandler, Arizona, argued the cause and filed a supplemental brief for the defendant-appellee. With him on the brief wasDaniel P. Struck, Struck Wieneke & Love, P.L.C, Chandler,Arizona. Jaleh Najafi, Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C,Phoenix, Arizona, filed the srcinal brief for the defendant-appellant. With him on the brief were Eileen DennisGilBride, Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C., Phoenix,Arizona, and Daniel P. Struck, Jones, Skelton & Hochuli,P.L.C., Phoenix, Arizona. OPINION O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge:We must decide whether an inmate engaged inconstitutionally protected activity when he served a prisonofficial with a summons and complaint on another inmate’s behalf.  B LAISDELL V .   F RAPPIEA 4IAThe State of Hawaii contracts with the CorrectionsCorporation of America (“CCA”) to house some of its prisoners within the Saguaro Correctional Center, a privatelyoperated prison in Eloy, Arizona. 1 Richard Blaisdell is one of those inmates. On April 23, 2008, Blaisdell visited ChristinaFrappiea—the prison’s Classification Supervisor—to ask her to notarize a document for a new lawsuit he planned to fileagainst the prison. 2 This was not Blaisdell’s first attempt atlitigation. He had filed at least three lawsuits against the prison and its officers since 2007. Frappiea notarized thedocument.As soon as Frappiea had finished, Blaisdell announcedthat she had been “served” and handed her a summons andcomplaint in a federal civil Racketeer Influenced and CorruptOrganizations Act (“RICO”) suit prepared by another  prisoner: Anthony Gouveia. Blaisdell had agreed to serve process as a favor to Gouveia and was not a party to hislawsuit. The suit against Frappiea concerned her apparentunwillingness to notarize a contract for Gouveia which   1 Because Blaisdell’s claim regarding retaliation was not conclusivelyresolved until summary judgment,  see infra Part I.B., we “draw allreasonable inferences supported by the evidence in favor of [Blaisdell as]the non-moving party.” Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc. , 281 F.3d1054, 1061 (9th Cir. 2002).  2 The classification supervisor’s job is to make recommendations aboutinmate placement so that prisoners are “assigned to the appropriate job,housing and rehabilitative programs.” The record is silent about whether notarizing court documents was part of Frappiea’s official duties.
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks