96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1656, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2810 Terry F. Newell v. Frank Sauser Lou Easter Sharon Starr, Sgt., Disciplinary Committee Chairperson Tom Reimer, Sgt. Robert Hartzler, Officer of the Spring Creek Correctional Center in Their Individual and Official Capacities

Citation: 79 F.3d 115Docket: 94-35243

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; March 10, 1996; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Terry F. Newell, an inmate at the Spring Creek Correctional Center, sued several prison officials, including Frank Sauser and Sgt. Sharon Starr, asserting civil rights violations stemming from the confiscation of his legal materials. The district court found that the officials could not claim qualified immunity, leading to their interlocutory appeal, which the Ninth Circuit affirmed. 

Newell, who served as a prison law librarian, had 59 pages of legal drafts seized by guard Robert Hartzler, who cited a violation of prison regulations prohibiting unauthorized items. Following a disciplinary committee's verbal reprimand, which affected Newell's parole record, he claimed this action violated his First Amendment and due process rights, ultimately filing a section 1983 claim after exhausting state remedies.

The court reviewed the qualified immunity doctrine, which protects government officials from civil liability unless they violate clearly established rights. The analysis involves identifying the specific right violated, determining if it was clearly established, and assessing if a reasonable officer could believe their conduct was lawful. Newell contended that his due process rights were infringed as he was disciplined without breaching any known policy, while the officials maintained that no clearly established right existed for inmates to possess materials belonging to other inmates.

Due process violations must be specifically articulated before applying the clearly established legal standard. Newell claims that the regulation in question was vague and did not adequately inform him that his actions were sanctionable. The court finds that the right at issue is sufficiently defined. To be considered clearly established, the law must be clear enough that a reasonable official would recognize that their actions violate that right, without requiring a prior declaration of unconstitutionality. It is a well-established principle that due process entails providing fair notice of prohibited conduct before sanctions are applied, as emphasized in various cases, including Grayned v. City of Rockford.

Other circuits have recognized due process violations when prison regulations lack clarity regarding prohibited conduct. An example is Rios v. Lane, where a prisoner was sanctioned for actions that were not clearly prohibited by the regulations. Even if a constitutional violation is found, an officer may be immune from suit if they could have reasonably believed their actions were lawful. 

In Newell's case, the regulation against possessing unauthorized items was deemed too vague to provide adequate notice of what was forbidden. As a law librarian allowed to assist other inmates and utilize a computer, Newell had a reasonable expectation that he could produce and possess draft legal documents. The regulation does not clearly indicate that such actions were prohibited.

The prison's response, including the creation of a regulation governing the possession of inmates' legal materials shortly after an incident, indicates that officers should have recognized their actions were unlawful due to the absence of a prior policy. Newell had a clearly established right to be informed that his actions could lead to sanctions, and a reasonable officer would have understood that seizing his computer-generated legal documents was illegal. The district court's ruling denying qualified immunity to prison officials is upheld. While Newell also claimed a First Amendment right to assist other inmates legally, the court focused on the violation of his due process rights, rendering the First Amendment issue unnecessary for consideration. The officials' definition of the rights at stake was deemed overly narrow, risking the potential to undermine future claims. Although there is no specific Ninth Circuit precedent on the matter, courts should reference available decisional law to determine if the law is clearly established. The court finds no genuine factual disputes that would require remanding the case for further determination. Ownership of the documents is contested, but Newell maintained they were his property until given to another inmate, and existing prison regulations did not suggest he was prohibited from possessing them.