Charles M. KEENAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frank HALL, Director Oregon Department of Corrections, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees

Opinion by Judge FLETCHER; dissent by Judge RYMER.

Charles M. Keenan appeals the grant of summary judgment dismissing his prisoner’s § 1983 action. Keenan alleged that the defendants transferred him without due process, confined him under cruel and unusual conditions, denied him his First Amendment rights, denied him access to the courts, wrongfully opened his mail from the courts outside his presence, and imposed an illegal fine. He seeks both damages and injunctive relief. We have jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm in part and reverse in part.

I. BACKGROUND

Keenan is an inmate of the Oregon State Prisons (“OSP”). On April 15, 1992, corrections officers discovered in Keenan’s cell a pen packed with crushed match tips and two toothbrushes with razor blades attached to them. This was the third time that corrections officers had found Keenan in possession of homemade weapons.

On April 17 and April 20, 1992, prison authorities held a disciplinary hearing. They determined that Keenan had violated prison rules forbidding the possession of weapons and imposed the penalties of six months confinement in the Disciplinary Segregation Unit (“DSU”) and a $325 fine. Keenan…

Dissenting:

Under Sandin v. Conner, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 2293 , 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995), Keenan’s transfer into the IMU does not implicate a liberty interest unless his confinement there “impose[d] atypical and significant hardship on [him] in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Id. at -, 115 S.Ct. at 2300 . Transfer from the general population to maximum security is “within the normal limits or range of custody which the conviction has authorized the State to impose,” even when the conditions in maximum security are “substantially more burdensome.” Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225 , 96 S.Ct. 2532, 2538-39 , 49 L.Ed.2d 451 (1976). As Keenan’s confinement in maximum security was “within the normal limits or range of custody,” it follows that it could not have imposed an “atypical and significant hardship” on him. For the reasons stated by the district court, I also cannot agree that Keenan’s claims regarding the conditions of his confinement survive summary judgment. I therefore dissent.

83 F.3d 1083 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3261 , 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5331 Charles M. KEENAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frank HALL, Director Oregon Department of Corrections, et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 94-35726. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Oct. 19, 1995. Decided May 8, 1996. Steven B. Berlin, Kenneth B. Stratton, Littler, Mendelson, Fastiff, Tichy & Mathiason, San Francisco, California, for plaintiff-appellant. Richard D. Wasserman, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, Oregon, for defendants-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon; Robert E. Jones, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-93-00051-REJ. Before: SCHROEDER, FLETCHER, and RYMER, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge FLETCHER; dissent by Judge RYMER. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: 1 Charles M. Keenan appeals the grant of summary judgment dismissing his prisoner's § 1983 action. Keenan alleged that the defendants transferred him without due process, confined him under cruel and unusual conditions, denied him his First Amendment rights, denied him access to the courts, wrongfully opened his mail from the courts outside his presence, and…