Kent Williams v. Landon Fox ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 16 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KENT GLEN WILLIAMS, No. 19-35281
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00143-DCN
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LANDON FOX, Guard,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
HILLNER; et al.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
David C. Nye, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 15, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges
Idaho state prisoner Kent Glen Williams appeals pro se from the district
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First
Amendment violations while he was a pretrial detainee. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Guatay Christian Fellowship v.
Cnty. of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011) (cross-motions for summary
judgment); Long v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 511 F.3d 901, 905 (9th Cir. 2007)
(qualified immunity). We reverse and remand.
The district court erred in granting summary judgment for defendant Fox.
Resolving all factual disputes and drawing all reasonable inferences in Williams’s
favor, there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Fox violated
Williams’s First Amendment rights to petition and against retaliation when Fox
rejected Williams’s two grievances and warned of possible disciplinary action. See
Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1270-71 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining that
“disrespectful language in a prisoner’s grievance is itself protected activity under
the First Amendment” and concluding that a threat of punitive action beyond
refusing to accept a grievance can constitute an adverse retaliatory action).
Accordingly, it was also error to grant summary judgment on the basis of qualified
immunity as these genuine factual disputes make it unclear whether qualified
immunity should apply at this stage of the case. See Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S.
2
731, 735, 741 (2011).1
REVERSED and REMANDED.
1
We do not consider those matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
3