Morgan

I. Background

Because this case comes to us at the stage of defendant’s motion for summary judgment, where the underlying facts are disputed, we “assum[e] that the version of events offered by the non-moving party is correct” when determining whether the defendant should nonetheless be entitled to qualified immunity. Wilkins v. City of Oakland, 350 F.3d 949, 951 (9th 18838 MORGAN v. CANADY Cir. 2003). We thus recount the facts, where disputed, based upon the evidence and inferences supporting Morgan’s posi- tion, recognizing that a trier of fact may make different deter- minations. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528 (1985).

At the time of the events giving rise to this litigation, Mor- gan was an inmate in the Monroe Correctional Complex in the State of Washington. He was employed in the prison print shop, where Canady was his immediate supervisor. Print shop work is a Class II Tax Reduction Industry under Washington state law, meaning that prisoners within these industries pro- duce goods for sale to public agencies or nonprofit organiza- tions. See REV. CODE WASH. 72.09.100(2). Among prisoners, such employment is desirable, because it requires…