United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
Lynn Winmill Chief U.S. District Court Judge
the Court is Defendants Terrie Rosenthal, Clinton Blake, and
Randy Blades' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 23). For
the reasons explained below, the Court will grant the motion.
Miguel Joyner is an inmate in the custody of Idaho Department
of Corrections. On December 1, 2013, another inmate reported
that he had been assaulted by the only two black inmates on
the tier at the time - Joyner and Spellmeyer. Joyner says he
was involved in the altercation but denies being an
aggressor; he says he simply attempted to stop Spellmeyer
from attacking the victim.
and Spellmeyer each received Disciplinary Offense Reports
(“DORs”). Defendants have testified that it is
their practice to issue DORs to everyone involved in a
physical altercation except the victim. Before the DORs were
issued, a correctional officer investigated the incident,
which included interviewing the victim and a witness. Both
the victim and the witness identified Joyner as one of the
assailants. Accordingly, a DOR was written up, and Defendant
Officer Clinton Blake delivered it to Joyner.
December 20, 2013, a DOR hearing was conducted. The hearing
officer confirmed Joyner's DOR and imposed sanctions of
10 days' detention, 30 days' commissary restriction,
and 30 days' recreation restriction. None of the three
defendants (Blake, Rosenthal, and Blades) were involved in
the DOR hearing, but Defendant Terrie Rosenthal reviewed the
DOR after the hearing. In her capacity as the Administrative
Review Authority, Rosenthal had authority to affirm, modify,
or dismiss the DOR. She affirmed Joyner's DOR and the
sanctions, concluding that evidence supported the DOR and
that the sanctions Joyner received were consistent with
sanctions imposed upon other inmates for similar offenses.
appealed to Defendant Warden Randy Blades, who also affirmed
the DOR. Shortly afterward, Keith Yordy replaced Blades as
the warden. Joyner approached Yordy and asked him to dismiss
the DOR. Yordy initially modified the DOR to a Class C
offense (from a Class B offense) and subsequently dismissed
October 2015, Joyner sued. He alleges that the DOR was issued
to him because he was black - not because he did anything
wrong. He also says the DOR was issued as part of
defendants' campaign of harassment against him.
original and first amended complaint, Joyner alleged that in
addition to receiving a DOR for the December 1, 2013
incident, he received additional DORs during 2011 through
2013. See Compl., Dkt. 3; Am. Compl., Dkt.
15. Joyner says each of these DORs is factually baseless and
that, taken as a group, the DORs show defendants subjected
him to a campaign of harassment.
earlier orders, however, the Court held that Joyner had not
sufficiently alleged facts linking the DORs and that
Joyner's complaints regarding these earlier DORs were
time barred. Successive Review Order, Dkt. 16, at 6.
Joyner was thus allowed to proceed only as to the December
2013 DOR, though the Court indicated that Joyner could file
an amended complaint if he later learned of facts that would
“support his earlier claims and his claims of a
continuing tort.” See Id. at 7-8.
did not subsequently amend his complaint, and he has not
otherwise come forward with any additional facts
demonstrating that the various DORs are factually linked such
that they support his continuing tort/campaign of harassment
theory. Accordingly, in this Order, the Court will address
only the December 2013 DOR.