United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
C. Nye, U.S. District Court Judge.
Kent Williams, a prisoner in the custody of the Idaho
Department of Correction, is proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action. At the time of the
events giving rise to Plaintiff's claims, Plaintiff was a
pretrial detainee incarcerated at the Ada County Jail.
has been allowed to proceed, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on
two types of First Amendment claims. He asserts that, in
January 2016, Defendant Fox violated Plaintiff's (1)
right to petition the government for redress and (2) right to
be free from retaliation for the exercise of his
constitutional rights. (See Dkt. 56, screening the
second amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1915 and 1915A).)
pending before the Court are (1) Plaintiff's
“Motion for a Protective Order”and (2)
Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (Dkt.
96, 97.) A dispositive motion (Dkt. 107) is also pending but
will be addressed at a later date.
fully reviewed the record, the Court finds that the facts and
legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and
record and that oral argument is unnecessary. See D.
Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.1. Accordingly, the Court enters the
following Order denying Plaintiff's Motions.
“MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER”
has filed a document entitled “Motion for Protective
Order.” (Dkt. 97.) In that Motion, Plaintiff asks
“for a protective order shielding him from the
defendant making public record and using as evidence in their
defense personal correspondence illegally confiscated from
plaintiff while he was a pre-trial detainee housed in the Ada
County Jail.” (Id. at 1.) However, because
Plaintiff's Motion argues that this evidence is
admissible, a protective order is not appropriate. Such
orders may be utilized to address discovery issues-not the
admissibility of evidence.
Plaintiff has submitted no evidence to support his conclusory
that the correspondence is forged or otherwise inauthentic.
Thus, Plaintiff has not raised a “genuine
question” about the authenticity of the correspondence
or established that other circumstances would make it unfair
for the Court to consider the evidence. Fed.R.Evid. 1003.
also argues that any consideration of the correspondence
would violate the Fourth Amendment. Plaintiff is incorrect.
The exclusionary rule is not a personal constitutional right,
and it does not apply in civil cases under § 1983;
therefore, a governmental official may rely on
illegally-seized evidence in defense against such a claim.
Lingo v. City of Salem, 832 F.3d 953, 959 (9th Cir.
2016). Therefore, even if the correspondence was obtained in
violation of the Fourth Amendment-which the Court does not
address-they are not subject to exclusion on that basis.
other objections-which are essentially arguments as to why
the evidence should not be believed or should be considered
in a light different from that urged by Defendant-do not go
to the admissibility of that evidence. Therefore,
Plaintiff's “Motion for a Protective Order”
will be denied.
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Standard of Law Governing Summary Judgment
judgment is appropriate where a party can show that, as to
any claim or defense, “there is no genuine dispute as
to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “[T]he
mere existence of some alleged factual dispute
between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly
supported motion for summary judgment ....”
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
247-48 (1986). Rather, a case will survive summary judgment
only if there is a genuine dispute as to a
material fact. Material facts are those “that
might affect the outcome of the suit.” Id. at
248. “Disputes over irrelevant or unnecessary facts
will not preclude a grant of summary judgment.”
T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors
Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987).
as here, the moving party bears the ultimate burden of proof,
that party “must come forward with evidence which would
entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence went
uncontroverted at trial.” Houghton v. South,
965 F.2d 1532, 1536 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks
omitted). That is, the moving party “must establish
beyond controversy every essential element” of the
claim. S. Cal. Gas Co. v. City of Santa Ana, 336
F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 2003). All reasonable inferences
which can be drawn from the evidence must be drawn in the
light most favorable to the non-moving party-here, Defendant.
T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc., 809 F.2d at 630-31.
Standard of Law Applicable to ...