Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Wise v. WA Department of Corrections
Citation: 331 F. App'x 477Docket: No. 07-35520
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; May 26, 2009; Federal Appellate Court
John Wise, a Washington state prisoner, appeals the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his First and Eighth Amendment rights by prison officials. The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reviews the case de novo. The district court's summary judgment on Wise's First Amendment claim was affirmed because he failed to present a genuine issue of material fact regarding the prison's legitimate interest in prohibiting inmates from sending state-issued, uncancelled stamps outside the prison. The ruling cites *Turner v. Safley*, establishing that prisons can impose regulations that infringe on constitutional rights if justified by legitimate penological interests. Summary judgment on Wise's retaliation claim was also upheld. Wise did not provide evidence that his segregation was a result of complaints regarding secondhand smoke or that the defendants acted without a legitimate penological goal. He admitted he was placed in segregation for refusing a cell assignment. The court affirmed summary judgment on Wise's Eighth Amendment claim, noting that he was not denied access to the prison yard for an extended period, aligning with *May v. Baldwin*, which states that temporary denial of outdoor exercise without medical consequences does not violate the Eighth Amendment. The district court's denial of Wise's motion for appointed counsel was deemed appropriate due to the absence of exceptional circumstances. His motion for additional discovery was denied because he did not demonstrate that it would yield facts to counter summary judgment. Additionally, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to amend his complaint, as he failed to provide a proposed amended complaint or sufficient details for consideration. Wise's request for injunctive relief was ruled moot since he had been transferred from the prison units implicated in his complaint. The court found Wise's remaining arguments unpersuasive and affirmed the lower court's decisions. This memorandum is not published and does not serve as precedent except as specified by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.